Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ISLAND OF ARRAN PIERS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Island of Arran Piers," presented by Mr. McNeil; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 60.]

PETITION

(Kingston and Malden Victoria Hospital)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to present a Petition signed by 40,780 of His Majesty's loyal subjects resident in the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames and in the Borough of Malden and Coombe. The effect of the recitals of the Petition is that the South-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board have not attempted to maintain as part of the National Health Service a hospital at which general practitioners can attend and treat patients.

The Prayer of the Petition reads:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that this retrograde step in the development of the National Health Service should be remedied by general practitioner hospitals, such as the Kingston and Malden Victoria Hospital, being established as an essential factor in the Service, for which your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition to lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Applicants (Payments)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of National Insurance what factors are taken into account in determining payments to applicants for National Assistance.

The Minister of National Insurance (Dr. Edith Summerskill): Full details are given in the National Assistance (Determination of Need) Regulations approved by this House. The main factors are the applicant's dependants, the rent he is paying and the extent and nature of his resources.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the Minister able to confirm her statement of 21st November that the means of the applicants play no part in determining whether they do or do not receive assistance, or the amount of the assistance?

Dr. Summerskill: I think that any comment I have made on this subject has been on the means of the family, which play no part at all.

Old Age Pensions

Mr. Walter Fletcher: asked the Minister of National Insurance if in view of the increasing cost of living to old age pensioners, she will consider stopping deductions from their pension when they continue to work, and their total earnings exceed one pound per week.

Dr. Summerskill: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Peter Freeman) on Thursday last.

Mr. Fletcher: Having read that reply this morning, may I ask the right hon. Lady if she intends to take any action, as she foreshadowed might be possible in that reply, in view of the great urgency of this matter?

Dr. Summerskill: I have nothing to add to that reply.

Mr. Paget: Has my right hon. Friend considered a proposal I put to her predecessor, that people should be allowed to earn up to half time in the undermanned industries? It was then being considered.

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir. I have already told my hon. and learned Friend that we have considered such proposals, but he must recognise that there are repercussions in these cases, which must be taken into account, and that we have no intention of allowing pensions to become subsidies for wages.

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many old age pensions are now being paid in Accrington, Rishton, Oswaldtwistle, Clayton-le-Moors and Church; and what were the corresponding numbers in February, 1945.

Dr. Summerskill: Statistics of these payments are not kept on a basis which would enable them to be broken down by localities to give the information desired.

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of National Insurance if she will assess the casual earnings of old age pensioners on a monthly instead of weekly basis.

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. I see no reason to modify the decision, reached after careful consideration in 1946, that the fairest, and indeed the only practicable, way of arriving at any necessary deduction on account of earnings is on a weekly basis.

Mr. Russell: Is it not rather hard on a pensioner who wants to supplement his pension by an odd job on one day of the week? Would it not be fairer if these earnings were accounted on a monthly instead of a weekly basis?

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have given this matter very full consideration. Has he considered the position of the pensioner who, at the end of the month, has a deduction in his pension made on account of earnings received at the beginning of the month—earnings which have already been spent?

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Minister of National Insurance if she will arrange to make available in the near future statistics indicating the number of men between 65 and 70 years of age who have ceased to work full time, but who would be willing to work full time if they were entitled to draw their full pension, unconditionally, as they can at the age of 70.

Dr. Summerskill: This information is not available and I do not see how it could be obtained.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Will not the Minister agree that she must be able to obtain a fairly accurate estimate of this number, which is increasing rapidly?

Dr. Summerskill: Surely the hon. Gentleman must realise that the only way I could obtain this information would be by putting a hypothetical question to every man of 65 years of age.

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Minister of National Insurance if she will consider in the present national emergency removing the present conditions with regard to the receipt of old age pensions, which discourages men between 65 and 70 years of age from working full time.

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether she will review the present insurance scheme in order to make it possible for the services of people over 65 years of age to be available for the community without injuring the rights of the people concerned to draw their full pension.

Dr. Summerskill: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Sutcliffe) last Thursday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Can the Minister give us an assurance that she is working in close conjunction with the Minister of Labour in considering this urgent matter?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir, I shall probably have conversations with him, but I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that the present structure of the scheme is so designed as to meet exactly the hon. Member's wishes.

Mr. Thomas: In view of the fact that it is foolish to rob ourselves of the experienced ability of many of these elderly people, would my right hon. Friend give urgent consideration to the request in my question?

Dr. Summerskill: I hope my hon. Friend heard the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Sutcliffe), which also applies to my hon. Friend's Question.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of National Insurance what the cost would be to the Exchequer of raising from £1 per week to £2 per week the earnings of old age pensioners before deduction is made from their pensions; and what the cost would be of a corresponding rise in the permitted hours of work per week.

Dr. Summerskill: I regret that this information is not available. There is no means of knowing how many people of pensionable age now in regular work would retire and claim their pensions if the changes suggested by the hon. Member were made.

Mr. Fisher: Would the right hon. Lady bear in mind, in offsetting this amount, whatever it may be, the benefits to the nation and the increased productivity which might follow from the underlying idea, and the benefits to active old age pensioners who are anxious to work if they are not discouraged?

Pneumoconiosis (Compensation)

Mr. Leather: asked the Minister of National Insurance why it is not possible for her Department to give an estimate of the cost which would be involved by eliminating the five-year qualification relating to compensation to pneumoconiosis sufferers.

Dr. Summerskill: I have no means of knowing the number of such claims to workmen's compensation which failed on the five-year limit, or of estimating the number which would arise if the limit were removed.

Mr. Leather: Would the right hon. Lady consider asking the National Union of Mineworkers, because I am quite certain that their branch secretaries would be only too happy to provide her with the figures?

Dr. Summerskill: In any question which relates to workers' conditions, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we do consult representatives of the workers.

Dismissed Workers (Benefit)

Miss Irene Ward: asked the Minister of National Insurance if, in view of the fact that unemployment benefit is being withheld from persons dismissed from their employment for non-union membership, she will, in the interests of liberty, take steps to have this principle reversed.

Dr. Summerskill: I cannot, at present, add to the reply given to the Question by the hon. Member on this subject on 12th December last.

Miss Ward: Is the right hon. Lady aware that on that occasion she said that the matter was sub judice? The matter is no longer sub judice; therefore, does she not think the people who are not members of trades unions are entitled to the same protection as was given to the conscientious objector during the war?

Dr. Summerskill: Since that time, this matter has become the subject of appeal to the National Insurance Commissioner. It is, therefore, still sub judice and I am unable to make any comments at the moment.

Maternity Benefit

Mr. Touche: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many mothers were refused maternity benefit and attendance allowance in 1950 owing to their claims not being made within six months of the date of confinement; if she is aware of the feeling of injustice created by such refusals; and whether any modification of this time limit is to be introduced.

Dr. Summerskill: This information is not available, but the time limits, along with the other conditions for maternity benefit, are at present under review by the National Insurance Advisory Committee.

Part-time Workers

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether in order to safeguard employers of part-time labour from having to pay large arrears of insurance contributions in respect of part-time employees whom they understand to be in the primary employment of another, she will make compulsory notification by all such part-time employees of the names and addresses of all persons from whom they may accept other part-time employment.

Dr. Summerskill: I am not aware of any general difficulty which would justify such a burdensome measure of compulsion.

Sir T. Moore: Does the right hon. Lady think it fair that this extra responsibility should be placed on the employers of part-time labour? It is especially a responsibility which is bound to increase with the rearmament drive.

Dr. Summerskill: I have always regarded the hon. and gallant Member as fair in matters of this kind, and surely he would not ask me to put the same responsibility on the shoulders of the employees.

Supplementary Grants

Mr. Nigel Fisher: asked the Minister of National Insurance to what extent her regulations permit fuel and clothes, or a monetary grant in lieu thereof, to be granted by the National Assistance Board to old age pensioners in genuine need.

Dr. Summerskill: The scale rates laid down in the regulations are intended to cover normal expenditure on fuel and clothing. Additions, whether in cash or kind, can, however, be made where necessary to meet some special circumstance or exceptional need.

Mr. Fisher: In these days of almost prohibitive costs of clothing and coal for those living on fixed incomes, could not the Assistance Board, which is so sympathetically administered by Mr. George Buchanan, be given extended powers in this matter?

Dr. Summerskill: They are given wide powers of discretion, and I am sure that the hon. Member will be glad to learn that last year they made 132,500 lump sum grants.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: In view of the rising cost of living, which is nobody's fault particularly—[Laughter]—it is certainly not that of the Government—can my right hon. Friend tell us whether, in the case of old age pensioners and people qualified for supplementary assistance, it is proposed to extend the discretionary allowances in order to help them in their present difficulties?

Dr. Summerskill: If people are given wide discretion there is no need to extend it.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Is it clear that the Board have discretion to take immediate action to increase the allowances,

following on the increased price of coal announced by the Minister's right hon. Friend last week?

Dr. Summerskill: They have discretion to take into account the circumstances in which a person lives.

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of National Insurance what additional steps she proposes to take to alleviate the distress amongst old age pensioners in view of the effect of re-armament upon the cost of living.

Dr. Summerskill: I would remind my hon. Friend that if any pensioner is in need it is open to him to apply to the National Assistance Board for supplementary assistance.

Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that does not answer the question I addressed to her?

Dr. Summerskill: It was hypothetical.

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether she will consult with the Assistance Board with a view to giving greater assistance to supplementary pensioners in need of boots, bedclothes and wearing apparel, in view of the rising cost of living.

Dr. Summerskill: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Browne) on 28th November, a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. Thomas: Can the Minister tell me whether that reply is encouraging, or is couched in the usual language?

Dr. Summerskill: It is always very difficult to satisfy my hon. Friend, but perhaps the figures which I have given—he may not have been in the House when I gave them—will go some way towards doing so. During the last year, we gave 132,000 lump sums in supplementary grants to assist pensioners, which totalled £490,643.

Injured Workers (Compensation)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of National Insurance how much has been paid in compensation to workers injured at their work during 1948, 1949 and 1950.

Dr. Summerskill: The total amount paid in benefit under the Industrial Injuries scheme from 5th July, 1948 (when the scheme came into operation) to 31st March, 1949, was £5,675,000. For later figures I would ask my hon. Friend to await the accounts of the Industrial Injuries Fund for 1949–50, which will be published shortly.

Gas Workers (Strike Payments)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of National Insurance if the National Assistance Board has recovered payments made to gas workers in the recent illegal strike.

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir; the Board have no power to recover them.

Mr. Fisher: With great respect, is not the Minister satisfied that, under Section 9 of the 1948 Act, the Board is entitled to recover this claim? As this illegal strike was of great inconvenience to the public, is it reasonable that the public should be asked to subsidise an illegal strike?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I would ask him to read the Act again, more carefully.

Mr. Keeling: Has the Minister read the Section of the Act? Is she also aware that it is not only in accordance with the Act that recovery should be made but in accordance with the intentions of the National Assistance Board, as expressed in a letter of 31st October last, when they said:
If assistance is granted to a person on strike, it is on the understanding that the amount granted will be repaid"?

Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Member reads the Act more carefully he will see that we can only recover allowances which are made when a man is in full employment.

Mr. Keeling: What about Section 11 (2)?

Mr. Blyton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the Committee stage of the National Assistance Act we passed an Amendment which abolished the Vagrancy Act, which the Opposition now seek to resurrect?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir.

Seasonal Workers (Regulations)

Mr. David Renton: asked the Minister of National Insurance when the hon. Member for Huntingdon may expect a reply to his letter, dated 11th January, to the Minister of Labour which has been passed to her Department for attention; and whether she will make a statement about the operation of the National Insurance Seasonal Workers Regulations, 1950, so far as they affect the payment of unemployment benefit to women who are employed in agriculture, except during the off-season from Christmas until the end of the winter.

Dr. Summerskill: I have now written to the hon. Member. I do not think that there is any more I can say by way of general explanation of the position.

Mr. Renton: Is the Minister aware that these seasonal regulations produced a most unexpected result in the farming community in the Fens, where for years women had worked all the year through, as far as they possibly could, and, quite rightly, were entitled to unemployment benefit? Now a sudden change has been made. Will she look into the matter again?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member surely recognises that in dealing with very many of these seasonal occupations we have a very difficult task. Before the regulations were made we invited representatives of all seasonal workers to give evidence before the National Insurance Advisory Committee and, having received that evidence, the regulations were drafted. I think it would be only right and proper to allow the regulations to operate for a year to see how they affect the position.

Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware this is something which is causing great concern not only in my hon. Friend's constituency but in other parts of the country? Would she say why women—they generally are women—who buy a stamp should not be entitled to receive benefits when they cease to be employed?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member is quite wrong. They have made a contribution and they are still entitled to unemployment benefit during the regular working period. They are also entitled to sickness benefit, which is very important to them.

Mr. Renton: Would the Minister say to whom she was referring when she said that before the regulations were drafted representatives of seasonal workers were consulted?

Dr. Summerskill: The representatives of the unions which represent workers in the agricultural industry.

Mr. Percy Wells: Would the Minister consider franking the cards of seasonal workers when they are unemployed during the off-season?

Major Legge-Bourke: May I ask if the information the Minister has given about consultations which took place would lead us to suppose that if the advice happens to be wrong she will not do anything to put the matter right?

Dr. Summerskill: I think that the people who should advise us concerning the conditions of workers are workers' representatives.

Egypt (Minister's Visit)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of National Insurance if she will make a statement or issue a White Paper on her visit to Egypt so that this country may benefit from the experience gained by the working of the social service schemes of Egypt.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of National Insurance what was the detailed cost of her official visit to Egypt; what was the object of this visit; and what other similar visits are contemplated.

Dr. Summerskill: I went with two officials of my Department on a return visit to Egypt as the guest of the Egyptian Government, several of whose Ministers and officials had recently visited this country. The object of these visits was to foster good relations and to examine the latest developments in the social services of each country. The cost of our visit was £435 5s. 6d., of which £400 10s. 6d. was for fares. I am not aware that any similar visit is at present contemplated.

Mr. Gammans: Would the right hon. Lady tell us what she learned from that visit, or did she go there to teach them something?

Dr. Summerskill: I am very surprised that the hon. Member should ask me that question, in view of the fact that he always professes, in the House, to have knowledge of what is happening in the Middle East and Far Eastern countries. I am surprised to learn that he does not know that during this year the Minister of Education in Egypt, who was invited by Oxford University recently to receive an honorary degree, introduced universal free education there; that the State, for the first time, has sponsored and financed welfare services; and that last week, on 2nd February, 400 offices were opened in one region from which to administer national assistance. In my opinion, these things should be encouraged, and if my visit did anything to encourage them it was well worth while.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Would the Minister consider, favourably, arranging for a meeting in the House to instruct the Opposition in the knowledge which she has gained from overseas, as it appears that they could do with some education on this subject?

Mr. Gammans: Will the right hon. Lady accept my gratitude for having given me the information in her supplementary answer for which I asked in my original Question?

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Refined Oil (Output)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how last year's total tonnage of refined oil products made in this country compares with the total tonnage made in 1938.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): The output of refined oil products in the United Kingdom in 1950, including the quantities lost and used in the refining process, was approximately 9.4 million tons. In 1938 the corresponding figure was 2.5 million tons.

Mr. Keeling: Does not the second figure show that the recent statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on a party platform, that before the war no oil was refined in this country and that the Labour Government had introduced a new industry, had no foundation in fact?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Since refineries are now being constructed which will give an output in 1953 of 21 million tons—about eight or nine times as much as in 1938—I think that my right hon. Friend's words were fully justified.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the amount of home refining in this country before the war was decided upon partly in the light of risk from air raids; and is he satisfied that this great increase of refineries in these small islands is not without anxiety, in view of the risk of atom bomb attack?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am not imputing any blame on the Government or on the companies before the war. I think that the reasons for the construction of the new refineries are very strong, especially on economic grounds.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister say how much of this refinement took place at White's Club?

Mr. Erroll: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of the present output of refined oil is produced by nationalised industries?

Mr. Noel-Baker: All the refineries belong to private companies, of course, but the Government have given them strong support.

Publicity (Co-ordination)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he has taken to secure that the publicity activities of the electricity and gas industries are co-ordinated with his efforts to secure economy in the use by the public of electricity and gas.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I have set up a committee consisting of representatives of the electricity and gas industries, the National Coal Board and the Coal Utilisation Joint Council, with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to my Ministry in the chair. I have asked the committee to ensure that all the publicity work of the three industries is co-ordinated with the efforts of my Department to secure economy in the use of fuel and power.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared, from time to time, to inform the House of the doings

of this committee, and, in particular, will he answer questions about its doings?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. Nabarro: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Parliamentary Secretary, in winding up last Thursday's coal debate, gave a specific assurance that an early statement would be made on the question of co-ordinating policy, and may we know when that statement will be available?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put his question down.

Mid-Week Sport

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what consideration has been given to the banning during the normal working hours of mid-week football and racing during the fuel shortage: and what decision has been reached.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Murray) on 23rd January.

Mr. Dodds: Will my right hon. Friend explain why, if the situation is so serious as to warrant a request to turn out street lights at 11 p.m., or earlier, which has a very bad psychological effect it is unreasonable, in those circumstances, to ask for the banning of mid-week sport during normal working hours for the next few months?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I can only ask the Football Association to postpone cup-ties if I can give them evidence that they materially affect production of coal, and no such evidence exists either for this year or for last year.

Major Guy Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the opinion strongly expressed by Sir Patrick Dollan and most widely supported throughout Scotland? Will he do something about it?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have explained to Sir Patrick the facts on which this policy is based.

Mr. Dodds: How does my right hon. Friend expect tens of millions of people to understand the gravity of the situation if this sort of thing is allowed to go on?


Does he know that the President of the Mineworkers' Union would like football matches to take place on Sundays instead of during the week, when they interfere with production?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I can only repeat that, as far as football is concerned, there is no evidence to show that it adversely affects coal production. Racing is still under consideration. The turning out of lights at night has had a very good psychological effect in helping to persuade patriotic citizens to save electricity and gas.

Power Cuts

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that insurance companies do not cover accidents which may be caused by a sudden fuel cut; and what provision he proposes to make to ensure that compensation is payable to individuals in the case of accident.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I have no evidence that any insurance company has refused to issue policies to cover accidents which might result from power cuts. If the hon. and gallant Member has received evidence to this effect, perhaps he will be good enough to let me have it. I have not heard of any case in which personal injury has resulted from such an accident; I do not think, therefore, that any special provision for compensation is required.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: If I produce the evidence, will the right hon. Gentleman go into the question of accidents caused to people in old peoples' homes and clubs as a result of sudden power cuts? Is he aware that insurance companies will not give cover to these people?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I will, of course, go into any evidence the hon. and gallant Member produces. Such people would have the normal benefits under the National Insurance system, and if there were injury in a factory it would be covered by the 1946 Act.

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he can report the progress in the establishment of a warning system or a rota system for power

cuts and load shedding in the area of Morecambe and Heysham and the area of the Lancaster Rural District Council.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The establishment of a rota or warning system in the areas of Morecambe, Heysham, and the Lancaster Rural District Council is a matter for the North-Western Electricity Board, and I suggest that the hon. Member should write to them.

Sir I. Fraser: Is not the fact that this Question is on the Order Paper prima facie evidence that the Minister is responsible? Will he not therefore answer my Question, because this is not only important to this district but to all factories, which should be warned before a cut takes place?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have had discussions with the B.E.A. and with the area boards on the general principle of national warnings, but I must leave local application to the boards themselves.

Lord Citrine (Speech)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the announcement by the chairman of the British Electricity Authority on 5th December, 1950, in London, that the electricity system of this country might collapse by reason of the failure of His Majesty's Government to allot sufficient funds for the construction of generating stations, he proposes to terminate the chairman's appointment.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: No, Sir.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does it follow from that answer that the right hon. Gentleman accepts as true the very serious charges against His Majesty's Government contained in the noble Lord's speech? Is he aware that if they are true, then other and more conspicuous resignations will be demanded?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir, I do not admit the interpretation put on the speech by the hon. Member.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend resist the suggestion that a totalitarian uniformity of opinion should be imposed on the chairmen of national boards?

Mr. Gammans: Is it with the Minister's knowledge and approval that the chairman has been absent from this country for over two months at a time of crisis?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir. It was thought to be of great importance that Lord Citrine should attend a conference in India.

Mr. John Hynd: As the speech of the chairman has been obviously misrepresented in the Question, will my right hon. Friend tell us precisely what he did say?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what interpretation he places on the statement that the electricity industry of this country might collapse owing to the financial policy of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is not what Lord Citrine said. Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to look it up.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will send it to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Noel-Baker: And I will send a copy to the hon. Member.

Hire-Purchase Agreements

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will make a statement as to why he has not given any statutory directions to the British Electricity Authority to ensure their observance of the Government's policy to discourage the use of funds for the financing of hire-purchase agreements.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The policy of His Majesty's Government is to restrict the borrowing of money for the extension of facilities for hire-purchase. The electricity boards borrow no money for this purpose; they finance their hire-purchase sales from trading surpluses. The value of the sales by the boards of appliances on hire-purchase terms is, at today's prices, well below the level of sales by the electricity supply industry before the war; and if the appliances on hire are included, the amount is less than one-third. Nevertheless, I am considering whether any restrictions are required.

Mr. Marlowe: Will the right hon. Gentleman take some urgent action in the matter? Is it not the case that the

Treasury have issued a directive that this kind of financing of hire-purchase agreements is inflationary? If it is inflationary when it is done by the banks, is it any less inflationary when it is done by a nationalised authority? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this matter will receive immediate attention?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The Treasury instruction was about the expansion of hire-purchase, and there has been no such expansion.

Mr. Assheton: Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that an authority of this sort, which has the support of British credit behind it and can raise money on the market at very cheap rates, is competing with private industry? Is it not grossly unfair to allow this competition to go on?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. There is an agreement between the associations of manufacturers and the boards about this matter.

Mr. Marlowe: When the right hon. Gentleman says that there has been no expansion, will he be good enough to refer to the Second Report of the British Electricity Authority, which shows that, as compared with 1939, hire-purchase sales were 10 per cent. and cash sales 90 per cent., whereas last year hire-purchase sales were 25 per cent. and cash sales 75 per cent., which is an expansion of two and a half times?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, but there has been a very great contraction on hiring, which is even more inflationary. I am considering the whole matter, but I am very reluctant to make it impossible for poor people to buy cookers, vacuum cleaners and other labour-saving devices which help women in their homes.

Fuel Utilisation

Mr. Alport: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will make a statement on the Government's long term policy on fuel utilisation in order to ensure the most economical use of existing and prospective fuel resources in Great Britain and to prevent the hardships and dislocation of annual shortages.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: His Majesty's Government attach the highest importance to promoting the efficient use of fuel in industry, commerce, transport and the home. I hope that the scientific research now going on will lead to big results within a period of years. In the meantime, a satisfactory increase of efficiency is being obtained in industry by means of my Department's mobile testing units, its service of fuel engineers, and the provision of stoker demonstrators. The Coal Utilisation Joint Council and the Women's Advisory Council on Solid Fuel have done much to make the public understand the advantages of the improved domestic stoves and grates that are now available. But there is still much that urgently requires to be done, and I can assure the hon. Member that it receives my constant attention.

Mr. Alport: If there is much that requires to be done, could the right hon. Gentleman give us an idea of what he considers it is that requires to be done now?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I believe that industrial firms could make very great savings if they all applied the best known methods of using fuel. Last year we had four mobile units in operation; in a week or two we shall have 16 units visiting firms and bringing them, I hope, up to a higher standard.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: Would the right hon. Gentleman approach the three Service Ministers on the question of introducing more modern stoves in Service camps? Is he aware that those at present being used are of archaic design, and have been extremely uneconomical for years and years?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am much obliged. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is taking that matter up with the Service Departments.

Logs, Birmingham

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the acute shortage of coal supplies for domestic consumers, he will take all possible emergency action to facilitate the supplies of logs in Birmingham.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind the difficulties of certain coal merchants who

were not allowed to stock wood logs in railway yards. I have taken the matter up with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and I am glad to tell the right hon. Gentleman that these difficulties have now been overcome.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Foreign Purchases

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much foreign coal was bought by the National Coal Board in accordance with his instructions; what was the price paid per ton; and from what countries was it purchased.

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he can yet say what is the price per ton, including freight and all other charges, of coal to be imported into the United Kingdom; and at what average price was similar quality coal exported from this country during 1950.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I am informed by the National Coal Board that they have bought, and chartered ships, for 1,073,300 tons of coal from overseas. The coal has been bought from the United States, India and Nigeria. Their negotiations are not yet complete, and it would, therefore, be contrary both to the public interest and to commercial practice to disclose the prices paid. The imported coal is of four classes, large, graded, smalls and unscreened. According to the Trade and Navigation Accounts, the average f.o.b. values per ton of coal of these classes exported from the United Kingdom in 1950 were as follow: large 81s.; graded 77s. 6d.; smalls, 56s. 2d.; unscreened 73s. 7d. The hon. Member will realise that these are average figures, and that there are wide differences of value for different qualities within these four main categories of coal.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's repeated refusal to give the price paid for this coal, may I ask if he is aware that this price is perfectly well-known to the suppliers in the United States, in whose newspapers the price has been published? Is it, therefore, his view that the only body which shall not have that information is the House of Commons?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir. The publication of prices in the United States Press has nothing to do with the matter. In due course, I will give the House full information about these transactions, but not until they are fully complete.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: In choosing the places from which this coal was bought, was this matter entirely decided by the availability of the coal, or did the Government have time to take into consideration whether one source or another would be more likely to disorganise world shipping?

Mr. Noel-Baker: We took all relevant factors into consideration.

Mr. Marlowe: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give the prices, whatever they are, would he not agree that we are, in fact, buying coal at about three times the price at which we are selling it?

Fuel Situation

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will make a statement about the fuel situation.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made in the coal debate last Thursday.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with his right hon. colleague the Minister of Labour in saying that this island is almost entirely composed of coal and that nobody but a genius could possibly organise a shortage of coal?

Accident Funds

Mr. W. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what funds raised at the time for the specific purpose of assistance to dependants of those killed or maimed in colliery disasters in Great Britain over the last 30 years still remain; and, of such funds, what amounts in each specific case are now redundant to the needs of such dependants.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: A new edition of the Colliery Accident Funds Return was laid before Parliament on 11th December last. It gives the information for which the hon. Member asks.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to take any action so that the funds revealed in that document can

be made available in future cases if they are no longer required for payments in respect of previous accidents?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

Miners' Respirators

Mr. W. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will consider providing a form of small respirator to miners working in pits where safety lamps are required in order to assist in their escape in case of fire.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: My technical staff, in conjunction with the National Coal Board and with the manufacturers concerned, have for some time been studying the problem of providing miners with breathing apparatus of the kind which the hon. Member describes; I have recently given instructions that the work must be regarded as of great urgency and importance. Unfortunately, there are technical and other difficulties yet to be overcome before an apparatus suitable for general use can be devised.

Mr. Fletcher: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that amount of progress, may I ask if he is aware that there have been recent incidences where the use of this apparatus has been of very real use? The remarks he has made about technical difficulties do not appear to have as much weight as they might.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I gave my instructions after the Knockshinnock accident. Everything is being done to push this matter forward, but it would be very dangerous to have a general distribution of apparatus which has not been proved to be safe and satisfactory.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is it not true that at Knockshinnock 118 lives were saved by a self-contained respirator? Will my right hon. Friend ask his technical advisers to take this into consideration?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Although these respirators served the purpose admirably in that case, I do not think they are suitable for general distribution in the mines.

Colonel Ropner: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think it advisable to wait until a respirator is classed as absolutely perfect? Would it not be better to


issue respirators that might occasionally fail in their purpose rather than have none at all?

Mr. Noel-Baker: We shall certainly do it as quickly as possible, but I must be advised by my inspectors and their expert staffs as to what is safe.

Coke Supplies, London

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why there is a shortage of coke in the London area.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: During the second half of 1950, the North Thames and South-Eastern Gas Boards sold nearly a quarter of a million tons more coke than in the corresponding period of 1949. The North Thames Gas Board is now supplying the merchants with 1,000 tons a day more than they were a year ago. But since the purchase of coke was freed from restrictions the demand has greatly increased.

Mr. Alport: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are large stocks of coke at various gasworks at the present time which cannot be moved because there is not enough coal which locomotives can use to haul wagons?

Supplies, Malvern

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether in connection with the supply of coal to Malvern, and adjoining districts, steps can be taken to ensure that the residents are enabled to get the coal which is due to them on the ration; and whether, in view of the complaint of many dealers in the district, that they are unable to get the coal ration to which they are entitled, that the arrears still due will be available forthwith for their customers.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: As I am sure the hon. Member is aware, the quantities of coal which a householder may buy are not rations, the supply of which is guaranteed; they are limits up to which he may buy if the necessary supplies are available. The allocations of coal to merchants have never been sufficient to allow them to provide the maximum permitted quantity for every household. I am assured that merchants in Malvern and adjoining districts are receiving their fair share of the available supplies.

Mr. De la Bère: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever heard of the Bayton colliery? Is it not a fact that the Coal Board closed this colliery, and that as a result the shortage in Malvern is becoming more and more acute each month? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman do something sensible about it? Will he give me an answer?

Mr. Nabarro: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was at Bayton last Saturday afternoon investigating this problem, and that there are hundreds of thousands of tons of easily worked household coal, which could abate the coal shortage in the rural areas of Worcestershire?

Mr. De la Bère: In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory answer of the Minister I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Briquettes and Ovoids

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why the supplies of coal briquettes and ovoids have been reduced in recent months; and what steps he is taking, in view of the domestic coal shortage, to make available larger quantities of this fuel.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I am informed by the National Coal Board that during recent months they have stepped up the production of ovoids and briquettes, and that by December the weekly output had risen to nearly a third above the level in August last. Subject to the provision of the necessary labour, arrangements have already been made to put the remaining ovoid plants into immediate commission.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Was it not a serious error of judgment to cut down so greatly the production of these two commodities in the early months of this year, in view of the present desperate situation, which should have been foreseen? Is the Minister aware that one merchant alone could sell 20,000 briquettes a week if he could get them?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Briquettes and ovoids are made of coal, and it is a matter for decision what quantity should be used for that purpose and what for other purposes.

Opencast Mining (Survey)

Mr. Deedes: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will undertake a survey of agricultural land which may be suitable for opencast mining, and publish its results so that farmers may know whether or not their land will be required, and can, where necessary, go forward with capital development.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The Survey proposed by the hon. Member is being made as rapidly as the number of qualified geologists allows, and the earliest possible information is given to farmers when their land is scheduled to be worked for opencast coal.

Mr. Deedes: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the survey is likely to be finished, because, in view of the announcement made during the debate last week, it is now a matter of importance to an increasing number of farmers?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It is, of course, a long and laborious matter, and to try rushing it would serve nobody's advantage. It all depends on the number of qualified geologists we can get, and we are getting as many as we can.

Mr. Eden: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider making the survey available to the House when it is complete? I am sure that he realises that one of the most disturbing results of the coal shortage is the increase in opencast mining, which may have unfortunate consequences for our agricultural industry.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, I will certainly give all the information I can. If the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question I will give him an answer.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the Minister recollect assuring the farming industry, not so long ago, that there would be a rapid end to this disastrous policy of opencast mining? Why are we stepping it up now? Does he still agree, or not, with what the Minister of Labour once said about a shortage?

Extra Domestic Supplies

Commander Galbraith: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what individuals, other than those actually mining coal or obtaining an extra allowance for sickness, are entitled to more than the

normal domestic allocation; what is the average individual amount of coal in-involved; and on what grounds it is provided.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Local fuel overseers are empowered to give licences for additional supplies of coal to domestic consumers who depend on coal for cooking, or who have some special need which results from sickness, chronic infirmity, confinement, a large family, or some special hardship. More than half the licences granted are to provide coal for cooking; in the south the usual supplementary allowance for this purpose is 20 cwt; in the north it is 10 cwt. When extra coal is granted for the other reasons which I have mentioned, the local fuel overseer assesses the need in each case with which he deals. In the year which ended on 30th April last, 1½ million householders received extra coal. The average amount was about 12 cwt.

Commander Galbraith: Am Ito understand from that reply that no concessionary coal is granted to officials of the Coal Board other than those actively employed in obtaining coal?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Certainly, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN

Sir John Mellor: asked the Lord President of the Council why competitive tenders have not been invited before making important contracts for the Festival of Britain; and why payments are to be made on a cost-plus basis.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Competitive tenders have been used for Festival of Britain contracts to the fullest extent consistent with getting the work completed by the opening date. On the South Bank site the general contractors for building work were appointed without competition because they were already working on the site as contractors for the London County Council. The introduction of additional general contractors on so small and congested a site would have given rise to confusion. Most of the sub-contracts for building work placed by these general contractors were after competition. Nearly all other contracts on the


South Bank and at other Festival exhibitions, except for small sums, were placed competitively by the Festival Office.
The answer to the second part of the Question is that cost-plus has only been used where it would have been impossible to get the work done on any other basis. The number of cost-plus contracts is less than half a dozen and the total value involved is relatively small. A brief note of any cases between £2,000 and £5,000 is sent to me monthly and larger cases are submitted for my prior authority where time permits.

Sir J. Mellor: If the Festival had been properly planned, would not the need of haste have been avoided and these contracts made in a more businesslike way?

Mr. Morrison: The Festival was properly planned, and the answer to the second part of the supplementary is in the negative.

Mr. Bossom: Could the Minister say whether the contract work is up to date, or whether it is running behind schedule?

Mr. Speaker: The Question only asked about competitive tenders.

Oral Answers to Questions — REARMAMENT PROGRAMME (MANPOWER)

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Lord President of the Council to what extent the rearmament programme is likely to make new demands on our resources of scientific manpower; and to what extent, and by what means, these can be met.

Mr. H. Morrison: The main emphasis of the rearmament programme is on a rapid increase of our strength by greatly increased production of equipment based on research and development already done. The execution of the production programme is not likely to call for the recruitment into Government service of a large additional number of scientists. It will, however, create a substantial new demand for engineers and technicians. The effort being put into certain very urgent development projects will have to be increased, and there will be a considerable new requirement for scientific staff in the defence research establishments and in industry for this purpose.
Ways and means of finding this additional manpower are being studied. I hope that no insuperable difficulties will arise in meeting them but, as elsewhere, the claims of the defence programme must be given priority over additions to civil establishments, which can be postponed, and some special steps to this end may have to be taken. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service is taking steps to ensure that the machinery for filling vacancies works effectively.

Mr. MacPherson: In obtaining additional staff will the Lord President try to ensure that the needs of the universities, technical colleges and secondary schools are maintained, so that the flow of scientifically trained personnel will be maintained?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot be sure that it will be fully maintained, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I will certainly keep that point in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOVIET EMBASSY OFFICIALS, LONDON

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what restrictions of movement in this country, if any, are placed on members of the Soviet Embassy.

The Minister of State (Mr. Younger): As stated in the reply given to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) on 13th November last, no restrictions on the movements of members of the Soviet Embassy are at present applied in this country.

Air Commodore Harvey: is not that reply a little bit out of date, in view of what has happened since? Does the Minister not agree that members of the British Embassy in Moscow have severe restrictions placed upon their movements? Why should this country tolerate members of the Soviet Embassy wandering all over the country looking at anything they want to?

Mr. Younger: I think that we have been right in showing great reluctance in imposing restrictions of this kind in this country, but we are prepared to do so in the event of further deterioration—I am not aware that there has been recent deterioration—in the case of our people in the Soviet Union.

Mr. Paget: Is it not the position that we have much less of which we are ashamed for them to see?

Mr. Martin Lindsay: In view of the wide dissatisfaction with which the hon. Gentleman's reply has been greeted in all parts of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—will he not look at the matter again?

Mr. Younger: We are keeping the matter under continuous review because, as I say, I think we are right to be very reluctant to rush matters of this kind.

Air Commodore Harvey: In view of the Minister's most unsatisfactory reply, and in the interests of the country, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.S. FORCES, GREAT BRITAIN (INJURY CLAIMS)

Mr. Sydney Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what arrangements or agreements he had made to ensure that British citizens injured in this country by drivers of United States Service vehicles recover the damages to which they would be entitled if injured in comparable circumstances by drivers of British Service vehicles;
(2) what arrangements or agreements he has made to ensure that members of the United States Forces who commit offences against the person in this country are made answerable to British law in British courts.

Mr. Younger: With my hon. Friend's permission I will answer Questions Nos. 48 and 49 together.

Mr. Silverman: On a point of order. I would point out to my hon. Friend that the two points in these two Questions are quite different.

Mr. Younger: I am quite prepared to answer the Questions separately, but I thought it possible that a full statement might have been better.

Mr. Silverman: indicated assent.

Mr. Younger: A multilateral agreement governing the status of Forces of members of the North-Atlantic Treaty Organisation stationed in a country other

than their own is being negotiated. This agreement will cover both criminal and civil jurisdiction over members of the United States Forces in the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, British subjects injured by drivers of United States Service vehicles are entitled to apply for compensation to the United States Claims Commission in this country.
As regards offences against the person, in accordance with the terms of the United States of America (Visiting Forces) Act, 1942, members of the United States Forces who commit such offences in this country are subject to the jurisdiction of United States military courts, unless the United States authorities waive their jurisdiction in any particular case.

Mr. Silverman: May I first ask a supplementary question with regard to Question No. 48? Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the arrangements made during the war worked perfectly satisfactorily, and that justice was generally done, but that that arrangement has been terminated and that since then His Majesty's Government have taken on additional obligations in this matter? Is he aware that it is not really very satisfactory that foreign Governments should accept a smaller degree of responsibility than would be accepted by His Majesty's Government in the same circumstances?

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is not satisfactory that the matter should be left where it is. That is why we are engaged in negotiations the result of which, we hope, will be that all the nations concerned in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation will be in the same position in respect of each other's Forces.

Mr. Silverman: In regard to Question No. 49, are we to understand from my right hon. Friend that it is hoped that the result of the negotiations now proceeding will be to render members of foreign Forces here liable to our own courts for offences against our criminal law?

Mr. Younger: That is obviously one of the points we have in mind, but I would not like to anticipate what it may be possible to agree in this particular case.

Mr. Eden: Can the hon. Gentleman give us his general assurance that the


Government mean to make arrangements comparable with those which worked so smoothly and well during the war?

Mr. Younger: Comparable arrangements, yes, so long as I am not tied to their being in precisely the same terms. This is a peace-time arrangement and there should be certain differences.

Mr. Pickthorn: How many cases of waiver have there been, and has there been any considerable proportion of cases of waiver?

Mr. Younger: So far as I am aware there has only been one case of waiver.

Mr. Vane: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the rights of British citizens will in no way be reduced where it can be shown, for example, that the driver of a United States Service vehicle was not on duty, as has been argued in the past?

Mr. Younger: I do not think that, without notice, I can deal with technical points of that kind.

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: Will the hon. Gentleman point out to his hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who has a well known antipathy for all things American—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that point arises out of the Question. Moreover, to ask one Member to point something out to another Member is hardly correct.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN (PEACE TREATY)

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what provisions for future Japanese migration he is proposing for inclusion in the coming peace treaty with Japan.

Mr. Younger: Japanese migration is not at present under discussion. It will no doubt be a matter for negotiation between Japan and other Governments after the conclusion of a peace treaty.

Mr. Teeling: Is the Minister aware that the Japanese population is now increasing at the rate of something like one and a quarter million per year, and that the Japanese Government are most anxious that this matter should be brought into the Japanese peace treaty as a question to be decided for the future, to avoid the possibilities of future war?

Mr. Younger: I am not aware what the wishes of the Japanese Government may be in this matter. We recognise it as a very important long-term problem, but it might be very difficult to include it in the peace treaty.

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Foster Dulles has been sent to Japan to prepare negotiations for a peace treaty, he has appointed a representative of the United Kingdom to work with him.

Mr. Younger: No, Sir. Since his arrival in Japan Mr. Dulles has had talks with the United Kingdom Political Representative in Tokyo.

Mr. Teeling: Is it not true that the United Kingdom representative in Tokyo is accredited to General MacArthur? Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether Mr. Dulles is also accredited to General MacArthur, or will he deal direct with the Japanese Government? If the latter is the case, ought we not to have someone doing the same thing?

Mr. Younger: I do not think I can answer the hon. Member's precise point about the position of Mr. Dulles, but so far as there is any need for an exchange of views—and I agree there is—that is proving perfectly practicable under the present arrangements between Mr. Dulles and our representative.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (FISHERY CONSULTATIONS)

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he was last in consultation with the Spanish Government with regard to matters concerning the fishing industry, especially the question of over-fishing.

Mr. Younger: His Majesty's Government was last in consultation with the Spanish Government with regard to matters concerning the fishing industry in February, 1949, when both sent representatives to Washington to discuss the prevention of over-fishing, at the International North-west Atlantic Fisheries Conference called for this purpose.

Mr. Marshall: Can the Minister explain why the Secretary of State for Scotland, in an answer to me during the debate on 25th January, gave the impression that we are now engaged in


negotiations with the Spanish Government on this point?

Mr. Younger: Without notice I cannot say exactly what my right hon. Friend said on that occasion, but we are now contemplating getting into touch with the Spanish Government to try to persuade them to ratify the agreement of 1946.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOCK STRIKE, NORTH- WEST AREA

Mr. McCorquodale: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour if he has any statement to make about the dock strike.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): Apart from Merseyside and Salford all ports are working normally. On Merseyside, out of a total register of 18,000 about 8,100 are on strike. The position in that respect is the same as on Saturday, but some 1,750 at Salford have stopped since work began this morning.

Mr. McCorquodale: What action has the right hon. Gentleman taken to impress upon the men the great necessity of honouring agreements freely entered into on their behalf? Further, what further action does he propose to take in view of Mr. Arthur Deakin's grave disclosures over the week-end and the fact that any extension of the stoppage must have a grave effect on our defence programme?

Mr. Bevan: I have been keeping in very close touch with the matter over the week-end. It is satisfactory that the efforts of the union have prevented an extension of the stoppage to the other ports, and I should have thought it absolutely essential that in circumstances like these the authority of the representatives of the union should in no way be impaired. We are all delighted that, so far, the rest of the docks have not been affected by the stoppage, and we are hoping that the men at Salford, Liverpool and Birkenhead will realise that the action of their colleagues elsewhere is a condemnation of their action.

Mr. Oakshott: Is it not a fact that this regrettable trouble, on Merseyside in particular, has been caused by elements playing on the dissatisfaction of the men at the slowness of the negotiating machinery, and would it not help if that could be speeded up so as to avoid this kind of trouble?

Mr. Bevan: The fact is that the other dockers have accepted the arbitration as satisfactory. I do not believe that it is desirable to exacerbate feelings in this matter.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is not a very bad example being shown to the dockers by the steel masters, who are organising an unofficial strike against an Act of Parliament?

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of the details of the report quoted by Mr. Arthur Deakin over the week-end on the trouble caused in the London area by a person who came here specifically to cause a strike at the London docks?

Mr. Bevan: The article has been printed in a trade union journal. It is a very interesting article indeed, and throws considerable light on the dock strike of 1949. I am asking for wider circulation of the article.

Mr. Renton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the unloading of any perishable foodstuffs is being delayed by the strike, and, if so, what steps he is taking to ensure that the public are not deprived of them?

Mr. Bevan: I understand that the Ministry of Food are not at the moment apprehensive about the food position.

An Hon. Member: Everybody else is.

Mr. Collick: Would it not be far better to leave the dispute between the union and the men?

Mr. Bevan: That is why I have said what I have. It is hardly wise for the Government to intervene when, obviously, the men themselves are putting matters right.

Mr. Nigel Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps, if any, he is taking or is prepared to take to try to eliminate from the docks Communist influence and infiltration?

Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir, the normal process of education.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That the Proceedings in Committee on the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for One hour after Ten o'clock."—[Mr. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — LEASEHOLD PROPERTY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

Considered in Committee. [Progress 31st January.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clause 5.—(PROVISION WHERE LONG TENANCY DETERMINED AND SUBTENANT, ETC., IN OCCUPATION.)

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 31, after the word "years," to insert:
and not for the time being subject to a tenancy granted for such a term."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

3.37 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: When the Committee adjourned the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General had just given us a short outline of the purpose behind the long series of Amendments to the Clause and I was making a few general observations with regard to that. I had just reached the stage in my remarks at which I was inviting the right hon. and learned Gentleman to have a look again at the proviso that we had drafted to the Amendment to Clause 1, because it seemed to me, judging from his statement, that that proviso really covered the whole ground covered by this lengthy and complicated Clause.
As I understand it, the effect of the Government's Amendments is to turn the Clause right round, making it quite different in character from what it was originally. "Sub-tenancies" are now not so much referred to as "superior tenancies." As I said to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, so far as we can understand the Clause, we are in agreement with the intention that lies behind it, and, therefore, I shall advise my hon. Friends not to move the Amendments which we have tabled to the Clause but to hear the explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman of the point which each Amendment covers and then consider the Clause again in the light of his explanation to us.
It may then be that we shall table certain Amendments to try to effect improvements during the Report stage. I hope that that will be convenient for the Committee and that it will be understood that we shall get into a great deal of difficulty if, while the Government are trying to re-cast the Clause one way we, by our Amendments, are trying at the same time to cast it round another way. It seems convenient, therefore, that we should deal solely with the Government's Amendments on the Clause in the Committee stage and then if need be move Amendments which we wish to move on the Report stage.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): May I respond to that invitation as shortly as possible by saying that all the Amendments, the first of which in the series I moved when we last sat, are designed simply for the purpose of rearranging and carrying out certain consequential Amendments to the Clause made necessary by the main and substantive Amendment to Clause 5, page 5, line 35, namely, to leave out from "of," to end of line 36, and insert:
a sub-tenancy created immediately out of the superior tenancy, being a sub-tenancy lawfully so created, or
(b) arising from ownership of a sub-tenancy created (immediately or derivatively) out of such a sub-tenancy as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, or
(c) arising, after the coming to an end of any sub-tenancy specified in the two last foregoing paragraphs.
I have already explained that our general object is to include what I may describe as a sub-sub-tenancy of a sub-tenant himself not in occupation. If hon. Members will look at subsection (5), they will see that it read originally:
References in this section to a right of occupation derived from a sub-tenancy are references to a right of occupation—
(a) arising from ownership of the sub-tenancy,".
The effect of that was, as explained previously, to link that to the top sub-tenancy in the chain. We have now altered that by adding new paragraphs (b) and (c).
If I may dispose at once of paragraph (c), it refers simply to statutory tenants. In other words paragraph (c) would now read:
arising, after the coming to an end of any sub-tenancy specified in the two last foregoing paragraphs from the operation of the


Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts …
those last words being in the Clause as it stands at present.
So, if hon. Members will disregard paragraph (a), which reproduces the original paragraphs (a), and (c) to which I have just alluded, they will see that the substantive new addition, paragraph (b) reads:
arising from ownership of a sub-tenancy created (immediately or derivatively) out of such a sub-tenancy as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph,
What I mean by saying that that is really an Amendment of substance is this: that the new paragraph (b) is designed to bring in the lower links in the chain of sub-tenancies. Once that substantive Amendment is made, various consequential Amendments were thought to be useful, simply for the purpose of clarifying the Clause and making it easier to read and understand. Perhaps I should make an exception in the case of the Amendment to Clause 5, page 5, line 4, namely:
Provided that where the superior tenancy comes to an end by surrender or merger nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requiring a sub-tenancy created (immediately or derivatively) out of the superior tenancy to he treated as coming to an end before it would have come to an end if this section had not been passed.
This is to remedy a purely technical defect which might otherwise exist in the Clause, but that is incidental to the main object which I am seeking to achieve by this series of Amendments.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Again I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanation of the general purpose and of what is the main alteration of substance, apart from form, made in this Clause. At the same time, everything he has said strengthens my view that we sought to do the same thing in one simple provision. I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give full consideration to that, instead of going through this long chain of tenants, sub-tenants and sub-sub-tenants as he purports to do. Instead of doing that, we could provide merely that a tenant shall have the protection, for it is the tenancy of a dwelling-house which is meant to be covered. I do not ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to reply now. It would be much better to

let him make his Amendments to this Clause and not spend time discussing them. However, I impress seriously upon him the point that all this can be done in a far less cumbrous fashion.

3.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I had intended to say a word about the proviso of the hon. and learned Gentleman. We considered it but thought that it did not really achieve the purpose. May I indicate one of the various reasons which rests upon the words "who retains possession by virtue of this Section"? Those words seemed to us to bring in the very defect which we are seeking to eliminate, in that it limits the application of the proviso to the tenant of the ground lessee.
There are other objections. For example, there is an objection to the expression "dwelling-house" to which this Section applies. This presumably must mean a dwelling-house which is the subject of a ground lease extended by Clause 1. The ground lessee or his family must be in occupation of at least part of the dwelling-house for Clause 1 to apply the proviso therefore misses the very common case where the whole property is occupied by the sub-tenant we are trying to protect by the Government's Amendment. Those are two objections to the proviso, and if we are correct in the view I have just sought to communicate, we could not achieve our object by adopting it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 35, leave out from "person." to "or," in line 37, and insert:
having a right of occupation derived from the superior tenancy.

In line 40, leave out from first "of," to "(including," in line 41, and insert:
the said person and of any other person for the time being having a right of occupation derived from the superior tenancy.

In line 45, leave out from "as," to "if," in page 5, line 1, and insert:
they would have been."—[The Solicitor-General.]

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 5, line 4, at the end, to insert:
Provided that where the superior tenancy comes to an end by surrender or merger nothing in this subsection shall be construed


as requiring a sub-tenancy created (immediately or derivatively) out of the superior tenancy to be treated as coming to an end before it would have come to an end if this section had not been passed.
In effect this is a drafting Amendment. It has been suggested that the wording of the last five lines of subsection (1) of this Clause might in one specific case have the result of cutting down the rights of a subtenant. I can illustrate that in this way. Supposing A is a freeholder who has granted a ground lease to B, who has a sub-let to C. B's ground lease and C's sub-tenancy are for terms which will not expire until after the two-year period from the commencement of the Act. If during the two-year period B surrenders his ground lease to A, then under Section 139 of the 1925 Law of Property Act, C will continue as the direct tenant of A until the term of C's sub-tenancy comes to an end.
It has been suggested that a doubt arises in regard to the words:
the rights and liabilities of the occupier … shall … be such rights and liabilites as the occupier … would have had if the superior tenancy had continued until the expiration of two years after the commencement of this Act …
Those words might be construed as meaning that the sub-tenancy is to be treated as having been granted only for a term ending with the two-year period. If this were right, that would have the result of cutting down rights which C would otherwise have had, the assumption being that his sub-tenancy goes on until after the two-year period. We seek in this Amendment simply to remove that possible doubt.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Committee have received a very clear and lucid explanation from the right hon. and learned Gentleman of what the Amendment is supposed to achieve, but he lost me after the first few sentences I could not keep up with him, and from the expression on his face the right hon. and learned Gentleman was wondering very much as he was doing it whether he was not putting a foot wrong somewhere in this extraordinarily complicated provision. The only person who looked thoroughly happy was the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), who may, perhaps, have thought that this would lead to further argument and discussion in other places.

Mr. Janner: Whatever is the hon. and learned Member talking about?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: At any rate, we shall consider very carefully in HANSARD what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. I propose to make no comment whatever now, because, quite frankly, I could not follow him.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 7, after "years," insert:
and not for the time being subject to a tenancy granted for such a term.

In line 11, leave out from "person," to "or," in line 13, and insert:
having a right of occupation derived from the superior tenancy.

In line 20, leave out "former occupier," and insert:
person who had the said right.

In line 24, leave out subsection (3).

In line 31, leave out from "person." to end of line 32, and insert:
not having a right of occupation derived from the superior tenancy.

In line 34, leave out "a sub-tenancy," and insert "the superior tenancy."

In line 35, leave out from "of," to end of line 36, and insert:
a sub-tenancy created immediately out of the superior tenancy, being a sub-tenancy lawfully so created, or
(b) arising from ownership of a sub-tenancy created (immediately or derivatively) out of such a sub-tenancy as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, or
(c) arising, after the coming to an end of any sub-tenancy specified in the two last foregoing paragraphs.

In page 5, leave out lines 42 to 47.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(APPLICATION OF PART I TO TENANCIES AND SUB-TENANCIES HELD ON TRUST.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 6, line 25, at the end, to insert:
(4) In section (Power of landlord to determine continued tenancy in event of assignment or subletting) of this Act the reference to assignment does not include a reference to a disposition by a trustee or personal representative in favour of a person beneficially interested (whether directly or derivatively) under the trusts or, as the case may be, in the estate of the deceased person or under trusts of which the deceased person was trustee.


This Amendment is consequential upon the Government's new Clause—which I propose, with your permission, Major Milner, to move in due course—which gives the landlord a right to exercise his right of forfeiture where after the date of expiry of a ground lease the tenant has assigned the whole or part of the property. Unless we make this Amendment, we might adversely affect the case of an assignment which is designed to give effect to a trust.
Obviously, the new Clause should operate only where there is an assignment of a beneficial interest, and it is therefore necessary to deal with the case where there is a legal assignment to give effect to a trust, but where either no beneficial interest passes or where the passing of the beneficial interest is created not by the assignment but for example by a death. One kind of case is an assignment where there is an assent by personal representatives in favour of a legatee. Obviously, they will not become the assignors about whom one is speaking when talking of the exercise of this right of forfeiture. It is convenient as a matter of position to make the change in Clause 6 which deals with the rights of beneficiaries under trusts.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 26, leave out from beginning, to "a," in line 28, and insert:
Section five of this Act shall have effect, in relation to a sub-tenancy so vested or held as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, as if.

In line 32, at end, insert:
were a right of occupation arising from ownership of the sub-tenancy."—(The Solicitor-General.)

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(RENEWAL OF TENANCIES OF SHOPS.)

The Chairman: The next Amendment is that of the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) in page 7, line 21.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Are you not, Major Milner, calling the Amendment which appears in my name (in page 7, line 12, to leave out

"a shop," and insert "business premises.") and those in the names of my hon. Friends, which appear before the one you have just called?

The Chairman: I am afraid not. I have had to rule the hon. and learned Member's Amendment out of order on the ground that it goes beyond the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: May I say with great respect that this raises a matter of considerable importance, as you will appreciate, Sir? It raises the question of whether the Bill is to be severely limited to shops or whether it is not. Various Amendments have been put down on this point. It is a matter which has aroused a great deal of public concern, and the Government's view of restricting it to shops is not supported by any recommendation in any report. I hope that it will be possible to consider the merits of my submission.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Further to that point of order. Can a Member engage in a debate with the Chair after the Chair has announced its decision, as to the Amendments which are selected?

The Chairman: I allowed the hon. and learned Member a certain latitude, but it is not competent for him to argue the point. I have ruled that those Amendments, however important and however desirable or undesirable they may be, are not within the scope of the Bill. The fact that recommendations have or have not been made in any report does not affect the matter in any way.

Mr. Janner: It seems to me, with respect, that the various Amendments deal directly with the purpose of the Bill and also with the definition of the word "shop." May I ask, with the greatest respect, whether a shop—

The Chairman: I cannot allow the hon. Member to argue the matter in any respect.

Mr. Janner: If I may say so—

The Chairman: The only question is as to the grounds on which I ruled the matter out of order. I have so ruled it, and it is not capable of further argument.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I am, of course, accepting your Ruling on these Amend-


ments, Major Milner, but may I ask further to the point of order which my hon. Friend has raised regarding the meaning of "shops" within the Bill, whether it will be in order to raise the Amendment which I have put down in page 13, line 5, of Clause 17, leave out from "purposes," to end of line 7, which affects the definition of the word "shop"?

The Chairman: We shall have to look at that Amendment when we come to it. I cannot anticipate what view I may then take.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 7, line 21, after "Act" to insert:
and where on the date on which the expiring tenancy would so come to an end the occupier would have carried on business in the shop for at least three years immediately preceding such date.
When, before the week-end, I was asked to undertake to move the Amendment, I made a note upon it which starts "pleasantly uncomplicated." That, of course, in regard to this Bill, is a relative matter and I have no doubt that the ingenuity of some of the hon. and learned Members opposite will seek to make what I have apprehended to be pleasantly uncomplicated a little more complicated than may at first sight appear.
The Amendment speaks for itself, but that probably will not prevent others speaking for or against it. It is based on the simple and, I hope, acceptable principle that what might be termed an uncovenanted benefit in the shape of an extension of a business tenancy beyond the contemplation of the lease, should only arise in the case of tenants with a reasonable minimum period of occupation. In putting forward that principle, I think that hon. Members will appreciate that we have now passed to the second part of the Bill—namely, that concerned with shop premises—and that a good many of the considerations and arguments adduced in respect of Part I, which deals with residential premises, are less material and less strong in regard to this part of the Bill.
Shopkeepers are business people and, therefore, may be presumed to have some attachment to what the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), considers the somewhat flyblown doctrine of sanctity of contract.

Mr. Janner: Oh !

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member expressed himself in rather strong terms about the doctrine of the sanctity of contract, but whatever relevance that may have to this matter, it may be expected that shopkeepers should have a decent respect for the sanctity of contract. Whatever force the sort of considerations so plentifully advanced in regard to Part I of the Bill by hon. Members opposite to the effect that tenants have entered into obligations without realising their full implications may have in regard to residential tenants, is far less in the case of the shopkeeper tenants with whom this part of the Bill is concerned. They are not in a position, I imagine, of being able to say, nor of seeking to say, that they did not know what in effect they were bargaining for when they entered into the lease.
That being so, I hope it will seem to the Committee that if this statutory protection is to be given in the case of shop tenancies that it will be given only to those with this reasonable minimum period of occupation. If the principle is right, it falls to the Committee to consider whether a period of three years specified in this Amendment is an appropriate period. As the Committee are aware, subsection (I) of Section 4 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, deals with business premises and specifies a minimum period of five years for the carrying on of business at premises before a claim can be established for compensation for loss of goodwill or for a new lease. In my submission, the period of five years, although it is the period in that Section of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, would be too long for the period which the Committee should establish under this Bill.
There are three reasons why that is so. The first is that in the Bill with which we are concerned the rent of a new tenancy is not, as is the case in the Landlord and Tenant Act, dependent on goodwill. Secondly, the period of five years for the purposes of the Landlord and Tenant Act includes the carrying on of business by successors in title at those premises. Thirdly, if a period of five years were prescribed in this Bill, it might operate harshly against ex-Service men shopkeepers who have established them-


selves in those tenancies since the war, but, by taking a period of three years it would seem not to have that unwelcome effect because the three years would date back to a time by which I imagine ex-Service men have normally established themselves in the tenancies from which they now operate their businesses.
Therefore, I submit that three years is the right qualifying period for the operation of this Clause. In support of the three-year period I would refer the Committee to subsection (1, a) of Section 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, which enacts that there should be no entitlement to compensation in respect of improvements made less than three years before the termination of the tenancy. In other words, that Act is regarding the last three years of a shop tenancy as being what, in the unlovely language of this debate, has been referred to as a fag-end of a lease.
This Amendment would secure the full benefits of this part of the Bill to those shopkeeper tenants with more than fag-end occupation. I ask the Committee to give favourable consideration to this as being reasonable both to the tenant and to the reversioner. The landlord has certain rights under subsection (3) of Clause 10 of the Bill, but a landlord should not be required to go to court to establish these things where they are applicable in cases of very short tenancies, where there is not any prima facie case for this extension by way of statutory protection. I therefore commend the Amendment as one which would bring to shopkeepers with a reasonable period of occupation the full protection of the Bill, but prevent an extension by way of statutory protection to people who have only just gone into their tenancies.

Mr. Janner: I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will not accept the suggestion made in this Amendment. In spite of the fact that the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) refers to the sanctity of contract, sanctity of human life and sanctity of existence is perhaps a little more important than the sanctity of imperfect contracts—

Mr. Walker-Smith: And of business?

Mr. Janner: Sometimes business means the man's livelihood, and these matters are being dealt with in that spirit. I hope that now we will forget about these terms

because, as a lawyer, the hon. Member knows very well that there are innumerable contracts, the sanctity of which is interfered with by legislation. Let us forget that and talk about the reasonableness of the present position and see whether we can deal with this matter on those lines.
The purpose of the protection given by the bill is perfectly clear, that a shopkeeper shall not be deprived of his livelihood in consequence of the fact that his tenancy when it comes to an end is not extended by an unreasonable landlord. There are many landlords sufficiently reasonable to understand that when a man has built up a business, whether in three months, six months or three years, he is entitled to the benefit of that which he has created. Very often the goodwill of a business is created in one place by an energetic person in a matter of months, whereas it might take another person years to establish that same goodwill, and there are many ex-Service men involved who have not taken over businesses three years ago, but, on the contrary, have obtained them only recently, possibly a year ago or six months ago.
In many cases landlords say they will allow a tenant to continue without entering any contractual obligation to do so and when they see that a business is successful they are able to sell the premises with the advantage of the business which has been created. They are not prepared to grant an extension of the tenancy to the tenant in consequence of the benefits created by the tenant. I am sorry to hear anyone who practises the law quote the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, as being something which ought to be followed in any subsequent legislation.

Mr. Walker-Smith: If the hon. Member had listened a little more carefully he would recall that the greater part of my speech was devoted to saying that the Amendment differed from the provisions of the 1927 Act.

Mr. Janner: That of course is understandable. But the hon. Member would have to sidestep the issue, because he knows very well that the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, is one Act which has brought a less amount of protection to business people than any other Act on the Statute Book. It certainly in no way fulfils what is the legitimate and


moral right that a businessman should have in the protection of his premises and his livelihood. Therefore the question of five years compensation, that silly, laborious method adopted in order to get extended leases under the 1927 Act, is something to be deprecated by all people who understand the case at all. As for the three years, that is, in my opinion, and in the opinion of anyone who is prepared to understand the grievances of small shopkeepers, something which ought not to be followed.
There is already a precedent with regard to the helping of small shopkeepers, an Act on the Statute Book in respect of Scotland, which indicates how important it is that the position of the small shopkeeper, which does not call for a shortened period, should be protected. That Act has worked very successfully and has been continued from year to year. It says nothing at all about five years and I ask the Committee not to be niggardly about this thing. The small shopkeeper must be protected.
Our interventions are made in order to amend this Act for the protection of tenants. That is why we speak, and not for the purpose of reducing any of the advantages or rights that would have been given to tenants. We feel very strongly about this, and if we on these benches can help our own Government in any way to extend further the provisions of what is a very good Act, so far as it goes, we shall certainly do so. It would be a very bad thing if we placed a limit of three years on the possession of the shop.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) has drawn the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Amendment he moved implements the majority recommendation of the Leasehold Committee in this respect. There is a further ground for the adoption of this Amendment, which follows from the argument used by the Government on the Second Reading of this Bill. They insisted that Part II of the Bill should be restricted in its operation to the tenancy of shops, because in the case of shops, and not in the case of other premises which they proposed to exclude, there was an element of good will. It was upon that ground that the long Title of this Bill was drawn in such a way as

to preclude the Committee from discussing whether further tenancies should be brought within its ambit.
If that is the reason why protection should be accorded only to tenancies of shops, then it follows necessarily that it should only be accorded where there is reasonable presumption that goodwill does adhere. Whether the correct minimum period for adherence of goodwill be three years or some other term, it must be admitted that some minimum length of tenure should be written into the Bill in order that the pre-condition of adhering goodwill should be created. That is one of the grounds on which it seems to me that the Government cannot logically decline to include in the Bill a qualifying period of tenure.
4.15 p.m.
It is true that in the Interim Report—I am referring to paragraph 70—there was a recommendation against the inclusion of a qualifying period. But the reason there given does not apply to the Bill before us. The reason was that any such limitation
would invite those landlords whose action it is sought to control to grant short tenancies falling outside the ambit of the scheme.
That however could not apply in the case of a Bill which affords protection only to tenancies falling in within the next two years, and in any case, affords an extension only for one year at a time. So I think the fact that the Interim Report was against a qualifying period should not deter the Committee from following the recommendations of the majority Final Report.
Finally there is the overriding reason which applies to protection granted under Part I as well as under Part II. The fundamental reason for giving protection in the form of a right of renewal is that the tenancy expires in conditions different from those which its owner had reason to expect when he entered upon it. If the owner acquired a tenancy a year or 18 months ago knowing it would run out in two or three years time—

Mr. Janner: That is not quite right, because time after time hon. Members, including myself, have asked questions about the extension of these tenant terms and have been given the answer, "As soon as we get reports this matter will be dealt with." So everybody had the right


to believe that there would be an extension.

Mr. Powell: Well, if that argument were pursued, it would lead us very far. It would mean that persons, when entering into contracts have the duty to consider not merely the law, but remarks made inside or outside this House, officially or unofficially, by the supporters of any party; and that is an intolerable position.
A person entering into a contract has no right or duty to look beyond the state of the law at the time when he does so. At that time, a year or two years ago, when a person bought a tenancy due to expire in 1951 or 1952, he could have been under no misapprehension as to the conditions upon expiry. The conditions of scarcity which existed when he acquired a tenancy, which was to run for one, two or three years, were no different from the conditions of scarcity existing today. So we should not push the protection given by this Bill any further than to cover owners of tenancies who find themselves, upon the expiry of their tenancies, in conditions which they could not reasonably have looked forward to.
It may be argued that the period of three years is too short for this purpose. But there has been in those three years a deterioration in our prospects, an increase rather than a diminution of scarcity. I suggest therefore that the period of three years is, upon balance, a fair qualifying period and should be insisted upon before a tenancy comes within the ambit of Part II of the Bill.

Mr. Weitzman: To put a limitation of three years on the application of this Clause is to put a completely artificial time-limit upon it. The answer to the necessity for any amendment like that is contained in Clause 10, which states:
Subject to the provisions of this section, on an application under this Part of this Act duly made the court may, if in all the circumstances of the case appears reasonable.…
Thus, the court has and will have in mind any circumstances that may arise, including the period of occupation by the tenant, as to whether or not the application ought to be granted. Accordingly, I suggest that this Amendment is completely unnecessary and entirely unreasonable.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) is obviously in favour of increased litigation. All he is saying is that the Amendment is quite undesirable because in every case in which an application is made by someone who has had less than a three years' occupation the court will say that it would be unreasonable to carry on the tenancy. If the hon. Member did not mean that, his speech meant nothing. He has not, so far as I can see, applied his mind to this question. His observations completely conflict with the Final Report of the majority of the Leasehold Committee.
I turn at once to the extraordinary speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner)—that is what I think it was, and I shall give the reasons why. The hon. Member began his speech by referring to the sanctity of human life as though life was endangered by these business contracts. It then became apparent that what he really meant was livelihood, which is quite a different matter. The hon. Member always tries to brush on one side a fact which cannot be brushed on one side in considering these matters—that what it is being sought to do here is to break and interfere with a contract which has been entered into. That should only be done when very strong grounds indeed exist. Every action under this Bill is an interference with the sanctity of contract.
It is all very well for the hon. Member to say "Do not let us be niggardly about this," because the party opposite is never niggardly with other people's interests and rights. He made a most astonishing speech. What has to be considered here is not only the existing shopkeepers but also a category to which the hon. Member has obviously not applied his mind at all, the class of would-be shopkeepers. The hon. Member has not applied his mind to that aspect.

Mr. Janner: Yes, I have.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: In resisting this Amendment, which was so eloquently and ably moved by my hon. Friend, the hon. Member said that, after all, these people were led to believe, because of answers he obtained in this House, that although they had taken leases for a year those leases would be extended before expiry. That is going rather far when


one bears in mind that the Interim Report was published in June, 1949, and no action was taken by the Government.
The case for this Amendment is a very sound one. If one bears in mind the interests not only of existing shopkeepers but of those who wish to become shopkeepers, a balance has to be struck between the two. Those who have had less than three years' occupation of a shop will not normally have acquired much in the way of good will.

Mr. Gibson: Oh, yes.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Normally the answer is "No." This Amendment is intended to apply not only to those who have themselves occupied a shop carrying on that particular business but also those whose predecessors in title have carried on the same business. The Amendment is meant to provide that but I do not think it is perfectly drafted. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not seek to take advantage of this drafting point. It has not been easy for us to draft Amendments to this Bill. It is our view that the protection given by Clause 8 should apply to those who have occupied their premises for three years or more, or whose predecessors in title have carried on the same business, so that there is continuity of succession.
What is surely wrong and to the disadvantage of any would be shopkeeper is that this protection should be given to a man who buys a lease just before it expires. That is granting a great advantage to the man who has financial resources or who can raise resources over the man who wishes to start in business, the new entrant. That is the balance to which regard must be had. It is no argument for the hon. Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North, to say "Leave it to the county court and the lawyers, they will sort it out somehow."

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I agree with what the hon. and learned Member says in that if this were a permanent Measure one would have to give careful regard to some period of probation, as it were. But is not the point here, which shows the difficulty of this Bill, that it is a temporary Measure; it

is only for a period of 12 months or perhaps two years during which this concession or extension is to last? The point appears to be that we are to leave everything as we find it. It is not a question of investigating merits or considering questions of good will or anything of that kind. I agree that if it were quite a lot might and should be said for the Amendment. I think that some period must be taken into account, but that is not the principle which underlies this Bill.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: That was a lengthy interruption which almost became a speech, not that I objected because the hon. and learned Member has shown that he has gone some way with me in the argument I am advancing. But I am surprised that a man of his intelligence and legal acumen should be led astray by the argument which is so frequently advanced in our debates on this Bill, that this is a purely standstill Measure. Of course it is not. In Part I there is a great alteration in rights. Does the hon. and learned Member realise the effect of that? Suppose a permanent Measure is introduced later containing a three-year period of occupation, the effect of this Bill not containing a provision about a three-year occupation will be to create a vested interest in respect of those who have just acquired the leases. I think that the hon. and learned Member would agree with me that on grounds of equity that would he wrong.
If we are to preserve the position until the final Measure, then the case for this Amendment is completely made out. I would remind the Committee that not only was this three-year period recommended in the Majority Report of the Committee: the report of a minority of the Committee, of which the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas) was one, contained the recommendation that:
Purchasers of the 'fag-end' of the ground lease should he excluded, and it is suggested that the last 10 years of the ground lease would be a reasonable definition of the 'fag-end'.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not mean to use recommendations entirely out of their context. I am quite certain he must appreciate that what he has quoted dealt with ground leases and has


no bearing on what we are now dealing with—short period occupation of shops.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should have thought that the same principle would have been applied by the hon. and learned Gentleman. If he is in favour of the last 10 years of a ground lease being a reasonable definition of the "fag-end," I should have thought he would have been in favour of a shorter period of qualification in Clause 8.
This Amendment is in line with the recommendation of the Majority Report of the Committee. If there is to be any permanent Measure implementing that part of that recommendation that is, in our belief, necessary to preserve some opportunity for the new entrant into business, for the man who wants his shop. Our view, as I hope I have made clear, is that the Amendment is meant to cover not only the cases in which an occupier has been carrying on the business for three years but also cases in which his predecessor in title has been carrying on a business of the same character. In spite of the lengthy speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, and in spite of his saying that this is a good Bill and that he is in favour of it, I am never quite sure from the way he speaks whether he is really in favour of it or whether he has not some hidden motive lurking in the back of his mind. I fully support this Amendment.

4.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I hope that the Committee will not accept the Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) intimated that it was the intention of his hon. Friends to include predecessors in title of the actual shopkeeper in occupation. In point of fact, his draft would not do anything of the sort. If a man died and his widow carried on, the widow would not be in a position, under this Amendment, to ask for a new tenancy. However, I accept that that is a matter which could be dealt with.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I agree that the Amendment does not correctly convey our intentions. I hoped that I had made it clear that we intended it to cover predecessors in title.

The Solicitor-General: Of course, the Amendment could be changed to bring about that effect. But even assuming that one deals with the Amendment on the basis that it were so changed, we feel that there is no case for it at all. Hon. Members opposite who sought to support the Amendment have done so by a variety of arguments. The mover of the Amendment used the argument that here we have the case of a shopkeeper getting an uncovenanted benefit. The hon. and learned Member for Northants, South, went so far as to quote by analogy a part of the Report which deals with the purchase of the fag ends of ground leases.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Minority Report.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman quoted a part of the Report which dealt with purchase of ground leases. There is a complete and radical fundamental difference between the two situations. In the case of the ground lease, the extended tenancy is upon the rent at which the ground lessee held the premises. That is a rent which is not a rack-rent but which is less than two-thirds of the rateable value.
When one is talking about shops and dealing with Part II of the Bill, one is dealing with a situation in which the shopkeeper has a fresh tenancy at a rent which is not the low rent payable under the ground lease. In that case the rent is a reasonable rent—reasonable in the circumstances as defined by Clause 10. So that in the one case the extended tenancy is upon a low rent, and in the other it is at a rent which in the circumstances is reasonable.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Surely the Solicitor-General has read the Minority Report of his hon. Friends which said that the qualifying period was one which must exist before the right of enfranchisement could exist; not merely the right to continue at the same rent.

The Solicitor-General: I do not see the relevance of that interjection. I am trying to point out that the two situations are entirely different. If it can be said—I do not necessarily accept it—that when the ground lease is extended one is giving the ground lessee an uncovenanted benefit, one most certainly cannot say


that in the different case of a shopkeeper who only gets the tenancy on the basis of a reasonable rent. That type of argument cannot possibly be supported.
I should like to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), said, that at the outset of this argument, on the very threshold of it, one must bear in mind that the tenancy of the shopkeeper is only renewed if it appears to the court to be reasonable in all the circumstances. So, to begin, there is an invitation to the court to exclude those cases which, whether because the lessee has been in occupation for an extremely short time or for any other reason, are cases in which it seems to be unreasonable to grant a fresh tenancy. Those are arguments which I should have thought were by the way.
The substantive objection to this proposal is that the Majority Report recommended a time limitation; but it did so only because it was talking about a long-term scheme. The requirement that the shopkeeper must have been in occupation of the shop for a minimum period of time was to preserve businesses which, because they had existed for some time, had an established value. They did that in relation to the long-term scheme which they were envisaging. Whether or not there will be some provision of that sort when we finally place upon the Statute Book the legislation which we are working out, I am not in a position to say. But, whether or not it would be right or wrong to do so in the context of a long-term scheme, we certainly think that there is no room at all for such a limitation when dealing simply with the interim period. Where we are trying to preserve the existing situation upon a standstill basis, there is every reason not to do it.
We are trying to protect the shopkeeper during this period of scarcity of shop accommodation. When we try to do that we must take into account the fact that a great many shopkeepers must have entered into occupation, very likely having much preferred to take a longer lease or longer tenancy, but being constrained to agree to a short-term tenancy for the very reason that there is the existing shortage of shop accommodation. Therefore, those people stand urgently in need of protection in this interim period.
It is in order not to exclude those shopkeepers, and for the very purpose of not excluding them from the protection which this Bill is designed to confer, that we have rejected the idea of introducing any minimum time limitation during which the shopkeeper must have occupied the shop. Not only that, but if we inserted such a time limitation—say, a three-year time limitation—there would be a strong inducement on the part of the landlords of shops who found they had a tenant whose tenancy had nearly reached the three-year limitation period, to give the tenant notice and to get rid of him before that period had expired, with the object of preventing him getting the advantage which a long-term scheme might confer upon him.
It would, once more, be playing into the hands of the unscrupulous landlord. When I say that, I mean such landlords as are unscrupulous; I am not talking generically about landlords. Landlords who are unscrupulous would take the opportunity to get rid of a tenant before the three years had expired with the very object of preventing him from enjoying the protection which a long-term scheme might confer.
Therefore, I ask the Committee to reject the proposal upon the basis that it cannot be justified by any of the arguments which relate to uncovenanted benefits, because the situation is entirely different. This is a case of a new lease upon a reasonable rent—a rent reasonable in all the circumstances. I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment because, during this interim standstill period, it would withhold protection from those many shopkeepers who have had to take shops on short-term tenancies because of the existing shortage of shops. In the third place, I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment because, if there was this limitation, it would play right into the hands of those landlords who, being unscrupulous, would seek to use the limitation for the purpose of getting rid of tenants whose tenancy had approached the three-year period.
For all these reasons, I hope the Committee will agree that we really should not run entirely counter to the purpose of this interim Measure in order to impose these qualifications to the right to a new tenancy sought to be introduced by the Bill.

Mr. John Hay: By far the most fascinating feature of the case made by the learned Solicitor-General was the fact that he did not deal with so many of the arguments advanced from this side of the Committee on behalf of this Amendment. As I understood him, he dealt with only two of them—the point raised originally by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) on the desirability of giving the tenant what was called an uncovenanted benefit, and, secondly, the argument raised indirectly and answered very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has really, at this stage, fully understood what our purpose is.
Our object, as I understand it, is that the type of benefit which this Clause proposes to give should only be bestowed upon those traders who are really deserving of it. That does not necessarily mean that, because a man has been the occupier of a shop for only a year, he should automatically be excluded from benefit, because we do not necessarily by our Amendment, however badly it may be drafted, exclude him being the successor of a man who was previously carrying on the same type of business. I should have thought that the Committee would have realised that, if it is desirable that we should give this particular benefit under this Clause to shopkeepers, we should be satisfied to give it to the right sort of individual. We all understand that there is this great shortage of shop accommodation. It is largely because of this shortage that the difficulties with regard to the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1937, have come about, because that Act was passed at a time when shop premises were not nearly so scarce as they are today.
To return to the main argument, if a man has been in occupation of premises for a long time under a long lease, perhaps one of 21 years, it is only right that he should have a chance of this increase of tenure, but we say that, if a man has just started in business and taken premises for a short time, say, 12 months or two years, he should not automatically get the right to insist upon a further period of one year's tenancy, because he has not yet acquired a status.
Our intention is to try to give help to the established trader, the man who more

than anyone else needs the protection of this Bill. I was very surprised indeed to hear the learned Solicitor-General enunciate what was the very converse of our argument. As I understood him, he said that in time of scarcity such as these, tenants of business premises always tried to get short tenancies. I listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman very carefully, and I believe I showed some puzzlement when he said that; I think that was what he said.

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry if I have not made myself clear, but I said exactly the opposite. Tenants of shops, often against their will, are constrained to take short tenancies, when they would have preferred long ones.

Mr. Hay: I rather think that if the learned Solicitor-General looks at HANSARD tomorrow, he will find that he said it the other way round, but, at any rate, he has now made clear what he means.
I would urge the Committee not to accept the rather fallacious argument that, as this is a purely temporary Measure, we should do nothing to improve it, because that is all that the arguments from the other side amount to. Here is a provision in the Bill of which we are in favour, and we are saying that it ought to be improved. It does not matter whether this Bill will exist for only two years or not; we ought to try to improve it, if we possibly can. I therefore urge the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Gibson: The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) said that he was in favour of the intention of this Clause, but the fact has been admitted by all speakers in this debate that, if this Amendment is carried, the number of people who will benefit is considerably reduced. Whereas, at the moment, there is no limitation of time before people can receive the benefit of this Clause, under this Amendment, they will have to have had a three years' tenancy of the shop.
I will give one illustration of many which I could provide. In my constituency, there happens to be a roadway which is to be widened. There are some shops in it, and the shopkeepers are engaged at the present time in transferring their businesses to other premises.


Most of them, unfortunately, have been subjected to severe bombing, and they are not in a completely permanent condition. Shopkeepers on one side of the street are moving to other shops, but they will not have had anything like a three years' tenancy of the new shop—

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what period of lease they are getting in the new shops?

Mr. Gibson: Most of them, I am informed, are taking yearly tenancies. They will not have had a three years' tenancy of the premises, and would not therefore benefit from this Clause. All of them are small people—newsagents, tobacconists, barbers and so on—and some of them are ex-Service men, and I say that that kind of person ought to be protected.

Mr. Hay: I want to follow the case which the hon. Gentleman is putting. He says that these people have been granted yearly tenancies. Would he tell the Committee whether, in fact, they have been offered or have asked for longer terms?

Mr. Gibson: My information is that they are getting yearly tenancies, and, probably, that is all they want. The point I am making is that all of them are building up their goodwill, and they will lose the benefit of this Clause if the

Amendment is agreed to. In an earlier discussion, a point was made against whittling down the number of people who will benefit under this Bill. This Amendment will whittle down the number of shopkeepers who should benefit, and I am glad that the Government will resist it.

Mr. Black: I think the speech of the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) indicates the confusion of thought which exists on the part of some hon. Members on this matter, and I intervene only to deal with the particular case which he mentioned. He instanced a case in his constituency of certain traders moving into new premises on yearly tenancies, and he made the case that these traders should have the benefit of the protection of this Bill. I think he has overlooked the fact that, after all, a yearly tenancy must be a tenancy for a minimum of two years. It cannot be less, because, by the very nature of a yearly tenancy, it cannot be determined before the end of the second year. That being the case, in as much as this Bill covers two years only, they will not in any event be protected by the Bill, either in its original form or its amended form.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 198.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 7, line 28, at the end, to insert:
or which consists of a shop and of such living accommodation as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph.
This Amendment is purely consequential. It introduces the case in which there is a separate part which consists of a shop and of dwelling accommodation which is joined to it. As the Clause reads at present, that particular category of case is left out. It was a purely unintentional omission, and this is a drafting Amendment to introduce it.

Amendment agreed to.

5.0 p.m.

Sir Patrick Spens: I beg to move, in page 7, line 39, after "shall," to insert "if the landlord consents."
Subsection (4) is a very peculiar subsection. The first thing about it is that it is the one subsection which takes away all discretion from the judge. The word "shall" makes it mandatory on him, if he thinks fit to grant a new lease of premises in which a shop is comprised, to confine the new lease to the shop premises alone, subject to the proviso that where there is let with the shop living accommodation in which the owner of the shop, or someone employed by him to manage the shop, lives, the living accommodation can be included with the shop in the new tenancy.
That is one case where, obviously, something beyond the shop should be included in the tenancy. In other cases it seems extraordinary that where other premises which are included in the lease are let with the shop, the new let lease should be confined solely to the shop premises. What the Clause means, apparently, is that if there are shop premises

together with a backyard or yards, stabling, garage accommodation or something of that sort, which can be regarded as being separate from the shop, the landlord is to be left with that part of the premises, and the separate shop premises alone are to be extended in favour of the tenant.
That seems to us a most extraordinary arrangement. We cannot believe that it is sound in principle, and for that reason we propose the insertion of the words, "if the landlord consents." If at a hearing of the case a court were to suggest, "Let the landlord have the backyard and garage, and let the tenant have only the shop," if the landlord were willing that would be well and good; but if not, and if there were to be an extension of the old tenancy, then in our view the tenancy should include all the premises of which the tenant was previously in possession. This is a short but important point, because the word "shall" binds the discretion of the county court judge.

The Solicitor-General: We think it is reasonable that if the landlord so desires, the new tenancy should be a new tenancy of the same unit as before—in other words, of the shop and the remainder. The drafting of the Amendment has certain defects, but, speaking for myself, if the hon. and learned Member would ask leave to withdraw it, we would think it right to introduce an Amendment to carry out the object which he has in mind and which, we think, is reasonable.

Sir P. Spens: In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, and I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for this first concession he has made to the Opposition on the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 7, line 40, at end, insert:
or consisting of the shop and of living accommodation, as the case may be.

In line 44, after "part," insert:
consisting of a shop and another separate part."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Janner: I hope that before the Report stage my right hon. and learned Friend will consider the question of deciding what "shop" really means. This is an extremely important matter. Many of us consider that the word "shop," as defined by some dictionaries at any rate, entitles us to say that a shop can be utilised for various purposes, and we do not want misunderstandings which would create litigation afterwards.
We should like to be assured that the term "shop" would include the ordinary kind of shop which is used, for instance, for the practice of a dentist or something of that nature. A solicitor's office is another kind of business which does not come within the technical term of "business" in the ordinary sense. I hope that before we reach the next stage of the Bill, the Government will allow businesses such as dental and other surgeries, and offices for solicitors and others, to be included within the scope of the terms of the Bill.

Sir P. Spens: On a point of order. Is the hon. Member in order, Sir Charles, in arguing what your predecessor in the Chair refused to allow on the ground that those suggestions went beyond the scope of the Bill? The hon. Member is now submitting the very argument which the Chair refused to allow to be put to the Committee.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I was just about to say so. Amendments which were not called are out of order and cannot be discussed on the Motion "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill." Nothing can be discussed except what is in the Clause as amended.

Mr. Janner: I am sorry to hear that that is your view also, Sir Charles. In the circumstances, I do not propose to pursue the matter further.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.—(TIME FOR, AND INTERIM EFFECT OF, APPLICATION FOR NEW TENANCY.)

Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 8, line 15, to leave out "one month," and to insert "three months."
The object of the Amendment is a simple one which will, I hope, commend itself to the Government. I think it will be agreed that whether or not a tenancy is to be prolonged by the operation of Part II of the Bill, by the time that the original tenancy expires the landlord should be in no uncertainty as to whether he is then free to dispose of it to another tenant or whether the protection should continue. With the period of notice of one month which is written into the Clause, that will not normally happen.
A tenant can leave his making of application for renewal under this part of the Bill to as late as one month before the tenancy is due to expire. Under the Bill, the application then goes to a court, who may dismiss it or may grant an extension. It may be two weeks, a month or, perhaps, two months before the application came before the hearing of the court. If the application is dismissed, then, under subsection (3), a further period of a month must elapse before the tenancy determines. Thus it may be several weeks after the date of the expiry of the original tenancy before the landlord regains possession, even though the court may have decided that the grounds for an extension were not sufficient. That seems to us to be unreasonable.
It seems to us, that, normally, by the time the original tenancy expires, the position should already have been cleared up. Therefore, we propose to require that the length of notice for making an application before the expiry of the tenancy should be not less than three months. That will give sufficient time for the court to hear the application and to decide upon it and, if they reject the application, for the further period of a month not to carry the tenancy beyond the original expiry date. That is the simple object of our proposed substitution of "three months" for "one month," and I hope that the Committee will see fit to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Janner: I appreciate the point that has been made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), but I think on balance it would not be


fair to limit the time to three months, for this reason. Those who have any experience of legal practice know very well that a large number of people are not aware of the rights which are available to them. Many of us find that the periods that are granted in the courts for certain purposes—the time limits within which certain applications have to be made, and so on—are overlooked by laymen. The result is that in many cases the courts have permitted special applications for an extention of time even when there have been limits imposed by other rules of court and Acts which permit of this discretion being exercised.
I could have understood it if the Amendment which required at least three years' occupation had been carried, but in shorter terms of occupation I think it would be unreasonable to impose a period of three months. Let me give one illustration. This Measure being in force, assume that a man lets a shop on a monthly tenancy, knowing that this Bill has become an Act. It would be impossible for that tenant to be protected. It may be an extreme case, but one has to deal with extreme cases; we have to provide for these things. It would be impossible for the court to provide for such a case.
This Amendment would prevent a certain number of people from enjoying the benefits of this Measure, and we ought to be very wary about restricting the rights of people and depriving them of protection owing perhaps to some mistake or misunderstanding on their part. I hope, in those circumstances, that my right hon. and learned Friend will not concede this Amendment.

Mr. Granville West: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will resist the Amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) has said, it is quite clear to those of us who have had a good deal of experience of tenants that they are inclined to overlook their rights until towards the end of the period of their tenancy. If they have to do something three months before the end of the tenancy, when perhaps the urgency of the situation has not been brought home to them, they are likely to be in great difficulty.
I do not think the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has a substantial point when he says that it sometimes takes three months for an application to come before the court. I think it is well recognised that if an application is made one month before the expiration of the tenancy, in the vast majority of cases that application will be heard by the county court before the month has expired. The only period that is required for the service of an application in ordinary county court proceedings is 15 days; it may be less, but the period of time for the service of proceedings in the county court is 15 days before the return day. If an application is made a fortnight before that, there is not the slightest difficulty whatsoever in the case coming before the court. I do not think landlords would suffer any hardship if the Amendment were rejected.

Mr. Powell: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that if a court rejects the application there is then a further period of a month added to the tenancy?

Mr. West: The Bill is intended for the protection of tenants, and there is no great hardship imposed on a landlord if the tenancy is extended by another month. I should imagine that if an application was rejected by the county court the landlord would be in no difficulty whatsoever.

Mr. Walker-Smith: How does the hon. Gentleman's argument affect those places where the county court sits only once a month?

Mr. West: It is true that, generally speaking, county courts in the provinces sit once a month—sometimes once in three weeks, but usually once a month. If an application has to be made one month before the expiration of the tenancy, and the application is put in, then the next available county court must surely be held within that month.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Weitzman: I think this is a very reasonable Amendment, and I hope the Committee will support it. One reason why I say it is a practical Amendment is this. If one has a month before the expiration of the tenancy in which to make an application, it is clear that the matter could not be disposed of by the county


court, and that would be a real hardship to the landlord. If the period were extended to three months, the tenant could make his application within that period and the whole cause could be dealt with, thus avoiding any hardship.
I know that one could put forward the argument that some tenants are not aware of their rights and should be allowed as much time as possible; but, after all, we have discussed this Bill; it has had a good deal of publicity, and there is no reason why people should not know what the position is. Such matters as these could not reasonably be dealt with in one month in justice to the landlord, and I am sure that hon. Members on this side of the Committee are anxious to do justice to both sides, including landlords. I suggest that the Amendment should be accepted.

The Solicitor-General: I have always regarded this as one of the most difficult Amendments to the Bill, although it is a very simple one. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), has said, we ought to be fair to both sides. When I came into the Committee my mind worked in this way. I thought that if we extended the period from one month to three months many tenants might get accidentally caught by forgetting to give their notice within the necessary three months. I must confess that that seems to me to be a very weighty consideration.
I am sure that no hon. Members on either side of the Committee would want tenants to be excluded by accident. It seems to me that there is a formidable danger of tenants being excluded by mischance. One knows that certain tenants of small tenancies are not accustomed to look at the written letter of the law. Therefore, speaking for myself, I feel there is a real danger of that undesirable consequence resulting if we accept the Amendment.
I advise the Committee to reject the Amendment, but I would add this: this is a difficult point and, speaking for the Government, I can say that we should like to consider it further in case we think it desirable, on Report, to change the advice which we offer to hon. Members. At the moment, however, having listened to arguments by Members on both sides of the Committee, who are not

divided on party lines—my hon. Friends differ in the matter while hon. Members opposite do not differ—I ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment. At the same time, my mind would not be closed to the possible desirability of doing something on the lines suggested in the Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to ask a question. The Committee will want to make up their minds on this Amendment fairly soon. I appreciate what the Solicitor-General has said, but there is a risk equally with one month as with three months. People forget about their, rights; they forget to fill in forms in time, but, after all, that is always happening—even with respect to filling in voting papers, and there is no saving clause there.
Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman find a form of words providing for three months' notice, or a lesser period, where good cause can be shown for not having complied with the three months' notice? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would do that I am sure we on this side of the Committee would willingly withdraw the Amendment. We must ask him to try to find a form of words providing for three months, for the reasons so clearly stated by the hon. Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), and others, giving an overriding discretion whereby if a tenant can make out a good case that the matter was overlooked by an unfortunate mischance, the three month period can be waived.
I feel quite sure that the vast majority of landlords would not take the view that a notice had arrived a week or a fortnight too late. It is obviously much better that both sides should have an opportunity of considering the position in the last three months of the lease.

The Solicitor-General: I cannot give any such undertaking. If we introduced some such form of wording we should be introducing a further element of uncertainty in the minds of both parties. It seems to me that the alternative is to have either one month or three months, and that it would be right to consider the balance of advantage of justice in those two periods. Speaking for myself, when I addressed the Committee earlier I said I would advise them to reject the Amendment and I simply said that my


own mind was not finally closed on this matter. I gave the advice to the Committee which I have given because it seems to me that we have to consider this factor in the situation—that a number of people, especially small tenants, might, with a three months' limitation, by a mere mischance lose the advantages intended to be conferred upon them.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am quite unsatisfied by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply. I do not think he has given sufficient weight to the very great advantage to both parties of trying to get a settlement by the court before the end of the tenancy. I am perfectly certain that that would be very much to the advantage of both parties. For that reason it seems to me that three months is much the better period.
I entirely agree that there may be cases, through illness or some other reason, where a person who is completely innocent in the matter may not take advantage of his or her rights, but surely there exists analogies for a court having discretion to extend the time if just cause is shown. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he will consider the matter. I think he would be better fortified in his consideration by a vote of the Committee.

The Solicitor-General: I said that I could not give an undertaking such as that requested by the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) but I listened, of course, to what he said and also to what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). We shall bear in mind what has been said. I simply commented that my prima facie reaction was that the Amendment would not be a good solution.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not look at this point too lightly. I believe that it is much more profound than has been indicated by the observations made so far. This is essentially a relief Act—a relief Act for tenants—and, in any provisions, we have to consider whether the words used are in conformity with that objective. The test which I put to myself is this: is it unfair to the landlord that

the period should be one month instead of three? I am bound to consider the tenant's position. As this is a tenants' relief Act, my submission is that the tenant should have an opportunity, as far as possible, right down to the last moment to exercise the right of relief which is conferred upon him.
To my mind, this question of a balance of advantages so far as the county court is concerned is quite irrelevant to the point we are discussing. It is true that if it were a question of equal balance, if it were a question of being fair to the tenant and to the landlord, if this were a Measure in which it was desired to give equal rights to the landlord and to the tenant, then one would properly consider whether a period of one month or a period of three months was right. But we have primarily to consider the tenant here, and those of us who have had experience of this know that the rights conferred under a relief Measure are often overlooked until it becomes too late to exercise them.
Consequently, I believe that the tenant should be given to the last possible moment to make his application. There is no injustice to the landlord. If he has to wait, that is a fate which often follows in this line of litigation; that frequently happens. In this case it is only a question of an application in a county court, which can and will be brought speedily. There are many cases in the High Court which take very much longer indeed for consideration, quite apart from any period of relief which is given. I have certainly never known a period as short as this.
All the statutes have been made so as to serve the advantages of both the tenant and the landlord, but this provision is made purely for the protection and relief of the tenant and, in those circumstances, I urge my right hon. and learned Friend, in looking at this matter again, to come to the conclusion that my view should be more rather than less strongly supported.

Question put, "That 'one month' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 204: Noes, 192.

Division No. 22.]
AYES
[4.50 p.m.


Alport, C. J. M.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Gamer-Evans, E. H.(Denbigh)


Amery, J. (Preston, N.)
Channon, H.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A


Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.)
Granville, E. (Eye)


Arbuthnot, John
Colegate, A.
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Cranborne, Viscount
Harris, P. W. (Croydon, N.)


Baker, P.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Harvey, Air-Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Baldock, J. M
Crouch, R. F.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Baldwin, A. E
Crowder, Capt. John F E. (Finchley)



Banks, Col C.
Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hay, John


Baxter, A. B.
Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Head, Brig. A. H.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
de Chair, S.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.


Bell, R. M.
Deedes, W. F.
Heald, L F.


Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)
Donner, P, W.
Heath, E. R.


Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Birch, Nigel
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)


Bishop, F. P.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)


Black, C. W
Duthie W. S.
Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C (Wells)
Eccles, D. M.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.


Boothby, R.
Eden, Rt. Hon A
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Bower, N.
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fisher, Nigel
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Braine, B.
Fort, R.
Hylton-Foster, H. B.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Foster, J. G.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.


Browne, J. N. (Govan)
Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon, L. W


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Keeling, E. H.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Fyle, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Burden, Squadron-Leader F. A
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Leather, E. H. C.


Butcher, H. W.
Gammans, L D.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H




Linstead, H. N.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Sutcliffe, H.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Teeling, William


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Pickthorn, K.
Thompson, R. H, M. (Croydon, W.)


Low, A. R. W.
Powell, J. Enoch
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Prescott, Stanley
Thornton-Kemsley, C N


Lucas-Tooth, Sir H
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O
Tilney, John


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O
Profumo, J. D
Touche, G C.


McAdden, S. J
Raikes, H. V.
Turner, H. F. L


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Redmayne, M.
Turton, R. H.


Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Remnant, Hon. P
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Renton, D. L. M.
Vane, W. M. F.


McKibbin, A.
Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)
Vaughan-Morgan, J K


Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S)
Vosper, D. F.


MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Roper, Sir H.
Wakefield, Sir W. W. (St. Marylebone)


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Ropner, Col. L
Walker-Smith, D. C


Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Ward, Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Manningham-Buller, R. E
Russell, R. S.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Marples, A. E.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon C


Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D
Watkinson, H


Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Scott, Donald
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)


Medlicott, Brigadier F
Shepherd, W. S. (Cheadle)
White, J. Baker (Canterbury)


Mellor, Sir J.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Williams, Sir H. G (Croydon, E.)


Molson, A H. E.
Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington)
Wills, G.


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E
Smyth, Brig J. G. (Norwood)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Nabarro, G.
Spans, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon Eart


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N Fylde)
Wood, Hon. R


Nutting, Anthony
Stevens, G. P.



Oakshott, H. D.
Steward, W. A (Woolwich, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
Storey, S.
Major Conant and


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Mr. Digby.


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Mention, N.)
Studholme, H. G.





NOES


Adams, Richard
Driberg, T. E. N.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Dye, S.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Ede, Rt. Hon J. C
Janner, B.


Awbery, S S
Edelman, M.
Jay, D. P. T.


Ayles, W. H.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.)


Bacon, Miss A
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Balfour, A.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Keenan, W.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Evans, Albert (Islington. S.W.)
Key, Rt. Hon C. W.


Bartley, P.
Ewart, R.
King, H. M.


Benn, Hon. A N Wedgwood
Fernyhough, E.
Lee, F. (Newton)


Benson, G
Field, Capt. W. J
Lewis, A. W. J. (West Ham, N.)


Beswick, F
Finch, H. J.
Lindgren, G. S.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M


Blenkinsop, A
Follick, M.
MacColl, J. E.


Blyton, W. R.
Foot, M. M.
McGhee, H. G


Bottomley, A. G
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McInnes, J.


Bowden, H. W.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Mackay, R. W. G. (Reading, N.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M
Gibson, C. W
McLeavy, F.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Gilzean, A.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Brooks, T J. (Normanton)
Greenwood, Anthony W. J (Rossendale)
Mallalieu, J. P W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D
Grenfell, D. R
Manuel, A. C


Brown, George (Belper)
Grey, C. F.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H A


Brown, T J. (Ince)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Burton, Miss E.
Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)
Mellish, R J.


Castle, Mrs. B. A
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Messer, F.


Champion. A. J.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Middleton, Mrs. L


Cretwynd, G. R
Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)
Mikardo, Ian


Clunie, J

Mitchison, G. R


Cocks, F. S
Hall, Rt. Hn. W. Glenvil (Come V'll'y)
Moeran, E. W


Coldrick, W
Hamilton, W. W
Monslow, W.


Collick, P.
Hannan, W.
Moody, A. S.


Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Hargreaves, A
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H (Lewisham, S.)


Cooper, J. (Deptford)
Harrison, J.
Moyle, A.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hastings, Dr. Somervilie
Mulley, F. W


Crawley, A.
Hayman, F. H.
Neal, H.


Crosland, C. A R
Henderson, Rt. Hon A (Rowley Regis)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J


Daines, P.
Herbison, Miss M
Oliver, G. H.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hobson, C. R.
Orbach, M


Darling, G. (Hillsboro')
Holman, P.
Padley, W. E


Davies, A Edward (Stoke, N.)
Houghton, Douglas
Paget, R. T.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hoy, J.
Pannell, T. C


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)
Paton, J.


Deer, G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, A.


Delargy, H. J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Popplewell, E


Dodds, N. N.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Porter, G.


Donnelly, D.
Irvine. A. J. (Edge Hill)
Proctor, W. T.







Rankin, J.
Sylvester, G. O.
White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)


Reeves, J.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Raid, T. (Swindon)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Rhodes, H.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C.A B


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Wilkins, W. A.


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W.)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Silverman, J, (Erdington)
Tomney, F.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Simmons, C. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, A. L.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Huyton)


Slater, J.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)


Sorensen, R. W.
Viant, S. P.
Wise, Major F. J.


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F.
Wallace, H. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon A


Sparks, J. A.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Wyatt, W. L.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Weitzman, D.
Yates, V. F.


Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Stross, Dr. B.
West, D. G.



Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Royle.


Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 23.]
AYES
[5.27 p.m.


Adams, Richard
Gibson, C. W.
Paget, R. T.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Gilzean, A.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Pannell, T. C.


Awbery, S. S.
Granville, E. (Eye)
Pargiter, G. A


Ayles, W. H.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Rossendale)
Paton, J.


Bacon, Miss A
Grenfell, D. R.
Pearson, A.


Baird, J.
Grey, C. F.
Popplewell, E.


Balfour, A.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Porter, G.


Barnes, Rt Hon. A. J
Griffiths, Rt. Man. J. (Llanelly)
Proctor, W. T


Bartley, P.
Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)
Rankin, J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Reeves, J.


Bonn, Hon. A. N. Wedgwood
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Benson, G.
Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)
Rhodes, H.


Beswick, F.
Hall, Rt. Hn. W. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hamilton, W. W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Blenkinsop, A.
Hannan, W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Blyton, W. R.
Hargreaves, A.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Bottomley, A. G.
Harrison, J.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Bowden, H. W.
Hayman, F. H.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Herbison, Miss M.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Holman, P.
Simmons, C. J


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Houghton, Douglas
Slater, J.


Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Hoy, J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Sparks, J. A.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Burton, Miss E.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Stross, Dr. B.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Champion, A. J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Sylvester, G. O.


Chetwynd, G R
Janner, B.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Clunie, J.
Jay, D. P. T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cocks, F. S.
Jeger, Dr. S. W (St. Pancras, S.)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Coldrick, W.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Collick, P.
Keenan, W.
Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W.)


Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cooper, J. (Deptford)
King, H. M.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham)
Lee, F. (Newton)
Tomney, F.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lewis, A. W. J. (West Ham, N.)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Lindgren, G. S,
Ungoed-Thomas, A. L


Daines, P.
Lipton, LI.-Col. M.
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H
MacColl, J. E.
Viant, S. P.


Darling, G. (Hillsboro')
McGhee, H. G.
Wade, D. W.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
McInnes, J.
Wallace, H. W.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


de Freitas. Geoffrey
Mackay, R. W. G. (Reading, N.)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Deer, G
McLeavy, F.
West, D. G.


Delargy, H. J
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Dodds, N. N.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)


Donnelly, D
Manuel, A. C.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Dye, S.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Edelman, M.
Messer, F.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Volley)


Ewart, R.
Moeran, E. W.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Fernyhough, E.
Monslow, W.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Huytan)


Field, Capt. W. J.
Moody, A. S
Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)


Finch, H. J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (Lewisham, S.)
Wise, Major F. J.


Fletcher, E. G M. (Islington C.)
Moyle, A
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Follick, M
Mulley, F. W.
Wyatt, W. L


Fool, M. M.
Neal, H.
Yates, V. F


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Oliver, G. H



Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Orbach, M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


George, Lady M Lloyd
Padley, W. E.
Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Royle.




NOES


Alport, C. J. M.
Baxter, A. B.
Bower, N.


Amery, J (Preston, N.)
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.


Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bell, R. M.
Boyle, Sir Edward


Arbuthnot, John
Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)
Braine, B.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Birch, Nigel
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Bishop, F. P.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.


Baker, P.
Black, C. W.
Brooke, H. (Hampstead)


Baldock J. M.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Browne, J. N. (Govan)


Baldwin, A. E.
Boothby, R.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Banks, Col. C.
Bossom, A. C.
Bullock, Capt. M







Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Raikes, H. V.


Burden, Squadron-Leader F. A.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Redmayne, M.


Butcher, H. W.
Hurd, A. R.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Butler, Rt. Hon R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Word, N.)
Renton, D. L. M.


Carson, Hon. E.
Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)


Channon, H.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Clarke, Brig. T. H (Portsmouth, W.)
Johnson, Howard S. (Kemptown)
Rodgers, J. (Sevenoaks)


Colegate, A.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Roper, Sir H.


Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Ropner, Col. L.


Crantborne, Viscount
Keeling, E. H.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Russell, R. S.


Crouch, R. F.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D


Crowder, Capt. John F. E. (Finchley)
Leather, E. H. C.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Darling. Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Scott, Donald


Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Shepherd, W. S. (Cheadle)


de Chair, S.
Linstead, H. N.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Deedes, W. F.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smyth, Brig. J. G (Norwood)


Conner, P. W.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M.
Low, A. R. W.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N. Fylde)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Stevens, G. P.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Duthie, W. S.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Storey, S.


Eccles, D. M.
McAdden, S. J.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Studholme, H. G.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Sutcliffe, H.


Fisher, Nigel
Mackeson, Brig. H. R
Teeling, William


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
McKibbin, A.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford/


Fort, R.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thompson, R H. M. (Croydon, W.)


Foster, J. G.
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Tilney, John


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D P. M.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Touche, G. C.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Turner, H. F. L


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Marples, A. E.
Turton, R. H.


Gammans, L. D.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Vane, W. M. F.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Mellor, Sir J.
Vosper, D. F.


Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Molson, A. H. E.
Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)


Harvey, Air Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Morris, R. Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Wakefield, Sir W. W. (St. Marylebone)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hay, John
Nabarro, G.
Ward, Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Head, Brig. A. H.
Nutting, Anthony
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Oakshott, H D.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Heald, L. F.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Watkinson, H.


Heath, E. R.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
White, J. Baker (Canterbury)


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E.)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Wills, G.


Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Pickthorn, K.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.
Powell, J. Enoch
Wood, Hon. R.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.
Prescott, Stanley



Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)
Profumo, J. D
Major Conant and




Major Wheatley.

Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 8, line 45, at the end, to add:
or the date on which the expiring tenancy is due thereafter to come to an end, whichever is the sooner.
I was under the impression when I moved the last Amendment that it was more simple than the Solicitor-General eventually discovered it to be. I hope I shall not have the same experience in this case. The object of this Amendment is to prevent the provisions of this Clause from being used for purely vexatious purposes, which I am sure no hon. Member would desire to see done.
As the Clause is drawn, the following sequence of events can occur. A tenant, a month before his tenancy is due to ex-

pire, may make application for its extension, by virtue of this Part of the Bill, without believing that he has any grounds on which such an application could, in fact, reasonably be founded; he can then, one day before the tenancy expires, shall we say, withdraw that application; and then, under paragraph (b) of subsection (3), he has an extra month's tenancy gratis and for nothing, in addition to his covenanted period.
As the Clause is drawn there is, therefore, a standing invitation to any tenant whose tenancy is due to expire within the period covered by this Part of the Bill to put in an application anyhow, because he cannot fail, by putting in an application, to get a month's automatic extension. That, I am sure, is a result which no one would wish to see.
By adding the words set out in the Amendment we obtain this result, that if the application is withdrawn, the date of expiry remains unchanged so that it is impossible for a tenant, merely by putting in an application which never comes before a court, to obtain any extension of the original tenancy. That is the simple point of this Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: On balance, here again, I would advise the Committee to reject the Amendment. Under the Clause as drafted, as the hon. Member who moved the Amendment said, the tenant gets an extra month, if he makes an application. However, the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong, of course, in saying that he gets it free, gratis and for nothing.

Mr. Powell: He gets it automatically.

The Solicitor-General: He gets it automatically; that is a better way of putting it. He has to pay his rent, so he does not get it free, gratis and for nothing. As a pure matter of drafting—perhaps, it is rather more than a matter of drafting—the Amendment scarcely makes sense. Possibly that could be remedied. It is a rather technical ground, but the ground is this. Subsection (2) of the Clause provides that where the expiring tenancy would, apart from the Clause, come to an end before the relevant date, it should be treated as continuing until the relevant date.
The effect of the Amendment is to make the relevant date the date on which the expiring tenancy is in any event coming to an end. If these words are written into the opening words of subsection (2) they produce the result that that subsection is dealing with a case where
the expiring tenancy would apart from this section come to an end before…
the date on which it would come to an end, which, I am sure the hon. Member would agree, is obviously quite absurd. Perhaps it is rather a technical point of view, but as a mere matter of drafting it is obvious that it would need a good deal of recasting to bring about the result desired by the hon. Member.
On balance, however, on the merits we rather think that on the whole the landlord is in a more advantageous position

under the Clause as it stands than he would be if the Amendment were accepted in a form appropriate from a drafting point of view. If the Amendment were accepted, the result would be that a tenant whose expiring tenancy is shortly due to end could put in an application for renewal of the tenancy under Part II and then withdraw the application, say three days before the tenancy is due to end. The result would be that the landlord might find the premises on his hands at three days' notice.
Looking at it from his point of view, one has to ask whether it is preferable for a landlord to be in an uncertain state as to whether he might have his premises landed back on him at short notice, or whether it is preferable that he should know that at any rate one month must elapse in respect of which he would be entitled to receive rent and during which he could make alternative arrangements for the disposal of the premises. On balance, it seems to us that that situation is more rational and preferable from the point of view of the landlord to the situation that would emerge if the Amendment were accepted.

Mr. Powell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that if his second thoughts lead him to substitute three months for one as the period of notice in subsection (1) then the difficulty to which he is drawing attention would disappear since the application, if not previously withdrawn, would come before the court sometime before the determination of the original tenancy.

5.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: As the Bill stands at present, the period is one month and I was discussing it on that basis. As the Bill stands, a tenant who makes an application and, upon maturer reflection and fuller consideration of the circumstances as the period comes near its end, realises that his application is hopeless or most unlikely to succeed, can withdraw it with the knowledge that he will have a reasonable time to get out. Otherwise, he would have to get out—supposing he had made an application—almost at a moment's notice if he had decided to withdraw the application.
That is a situation which rather penalises the bona fide tenant who puts in a reasonable application to safeguard the


situation and, having considered it more maturely and on profounder reflection, realises that his application is not entitled to succeed. It is in the public interest, in the interest of the tenant and of the landlord that in those circumstances the tenant should be able to withdraw his application and that he should be able to withdraw it in the knowledge that he will also have at least a month in which to make alternative arrangements. In relation to the Amendment, it seems to us that the situation from the point of view of both landlord and tenant is preferable as the Clause now stands.
The landlord knows he will have rent for a month and that he can make arrangements in that month. The tenant knows that if, bona fide, he decides to withdraw the application because it is not likely to succeed, he will also have an extra month to make provision for himself. One is always face to face with the difficulty that one may have an unscrupulous person on either side of the fence—the landlord's or the tenant's—who will try to use the situation to his own advantage. But the body of responsible people wanting to deal fairly with one another should not be put at a disadvantage because of the far fewer instances of those who might seek to abuse the provisions of the Bill.
If the change proposed in the Amendment is accepted the tenant who is unscrupulous can equally abuse it. He can equally put in his application, get his extension of tenancy, and, at the last moment, disappear and not turn up to support his application. If he does that he gets a certain amount of advantage by putting in his application even if the hon. Member's Amendment is accepted. Therefore, it is not as if by accepting the Amendment one can put an obstruction in the path of an unscrupulous tenant. We have formed the view that it would be certainly to the advantage of both landlord and tenant that the Clause should stand as it is, and my advice to the Committee would be to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I find the Solicitor-General's argument singularly unconvincing. It seems to me that he would have had difficulty in finding any argument he could have advanced which would have had even the appearance of substance behind it. Let us try to get

this matter into perspective. First of all, I come back to a point which influenced the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) who, I am sorry to see, has gone from us. This, again, is an interference with the contract between landlord and tenant, an interference with the sanctity of contract to enable the tenant to obtain an extension of his lease.
Let us accept, for the purpose of argument, that it is obviously right that if we are going to do the first, then the tenant should remain in occupation of his premises until that matter is adjudicated on by the county court. That is a case which the Solicitor-General would not have found at all difficult to argue. He would not have experienced any of the difficulties he experienced just now. But this is quite different. This is giving an automatic right to an increase of his tenancy to someone who has merely put in his application and then withdrawn it.

The Solicitor-General: For one month.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Why should the contract be extended for one month where the tenant is not wishing to take advantage of this Measure? There is real scope for abuse here, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman should apply his mind to it. Our Amendment is not designed to impede the bona fide applicant at all. Our Amendment is designed to stop what may become, as so many things have become under the party opposite, a racket.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not applied his mind to stopping that at all. He talks as if the fact that a landlord is entitled to rent for another month is sufficient compensation, but he knows full well, with his experience in the courts, that to be entitled to rent is one thing and to receive it is very often quite different. Why should a tenant, merely by putting in an application and then withdrawing it, be automatically entitled to a further extension of his tenancy? Why should he be allowed to break his word for a further month, because he has given his word to vacate by a certain time, merely in consequence of having put in an application and then having withdraw it? It seems to us that this is something quite outside the intention of this Bill.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman, speaking for his party, seeks to convince us that this is in the best interests of the landlords, I must say to him that there are some arguments which are much easier for us to swallow than that one. When he says that, on balance, this is all right as it is, my answer is that I do not mind a bit about his spending time in criticising the drafting of our Amendment—I will not take up time in trying to answer his criticism about that—but it is perfectly clear from the Bill that anyone who likes to put in an application for an extension and then withdraws it gets an automatic extension of his tenancy for one month. It is true that he is liable to pay rent; but why should he get that extension when he does not want to take advantage of the provisions of the Bill?

Mr. Granville West: Is it quite clear that by making an application he does desire to take advantage of the Bill? Some other factor may have crept in which induces him to withdraw the application. Probably he has obtained the tenancy of other premises, and, therefore, it is to the landlord's advantage that the application should be brought.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Gentleman is trying to be more obtuse than he really is. I am not dealing with a bona fide case. I am dealing with the case which is a deliberate attempt to get an extension for one month by just lodging an application and then withdrawing it. I thought that I had made that quite clear. I am not dealing with the case where there is a bona fide application and a bona fide withdrawal of the application.
I am pointing out to the hon. Gentleman—I am sure that he can follow my argument—what can happen here, if we have a number of persons—and they do exist—who say quite deliberately, "This is a bit of jam for us. We do not want another lease for one year, but, look, we can get another month automatically. You do not even have to go to court to satisfy them that it is reasonable. All we have to do is to put in an application and then withdraw it."
That is the effect of the Bill as it stands. If the hon. Gentleman does not agree that that is the effect, I am sure that the Solicitor-General will agree with

me that it is. He did not dispute the proposition put by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). He did not challenge it at all; he recognised it. He said that, on balance, we think that the Clause should stay as it is. I say that it is a very bad balance if steps are not taken to prevent the misuse of the powers obtained under this Clause. We want to stop abuse of the provisions of the Bill. The Amendment is designed to do that. We are not trying to affect the bona fide case where a man genuinely wants an extension for one year, and something happens, and he withdraws his application.
If he withdraws his application, why should he not leave on the date he agreed to? So much more so with the man whose application is mala fide and never bona fide. There can be no case, on balance, or in any respect at all, for giving a mala fide applicant an automatic extension of one month, just in consequence of his putting in his application. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will apply his mind more to stopping this possible abuse than to drawing attention to the drafting difficulties. I hope that he will say that, if he cannot do so now, he will at least undertake to look into this matter and see what can be done on Report stage.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: This is a small point so far as time is concerned. There is only one month involved. I think that there is some substance in what the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has said. I opposed tile last Amendment because I did not think that it was right, but I am inclined to support this Amendment. The proposition which has been put forward is this: where an application is withdrawn the tenancy, nevertheless, under the provisions of the Bill, goes on for another month. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that that is not right. He says that if the tenant has pre-determined that he does not want anything more to do with the tenancy, he can, if he makes unscrupulous use of this provision, give himself a gratituitous extension of two, three or four weeks. I do not thing that any Act of Parliament, whatever the shortness of the period involved, should lend any support whatever to any act of that kind.
I think that it is the duty of the Legislature, quite apart from the Front Bench, and of every hon. Member, to prevent such a wrong use of a statute if it can be prevented. The way in which it is sought to be prevented is, as I understand it, this: it is said that if an application is withdrawn it then indicates that the tenant wants nothing more to do with the tenancy. In those circumstances, why, if the lease comes to an end at an earlier date than the month which this provision gives, should the tenant have that advantage?
It is true that the time is only short, and, therefore, this may seem a little trumpery—but the principle is not trumpery—and because of that, I think that the Solicitor-General ought to look at this matter again. If he comes to the conclusion as I think he may—I do not put it any higher than that—that it is possible to make an unfair or an unscrupulous use of this provision, then something ought to be done to stop it, and the simplest way to stop it is by the method of the Amendment. What finally makes me conclude in favour of the Amendment is that it does not seem to me to put any injustice upon the tenant. Therefore, if we can, by one stroke, remove an injustice to the landlord, and, at the same time, do no injustice to the tenant. I think that ought to be clone, and that the Amendment does it.

The Solicitor-General: May I implement what I said? I do not think that I have made the point which I was trying to make clear either to hon. Members opposite or to my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). Let us take this case. The tenancy is due to come to an end on the 31st of the month, and, it being the beginning of the month, the tenant puts in an application. The month goes on, and, if the Amendment is accepted, at any time during that month—say on the the 27th, 28th or 29th of the month—the tenant can withdraw his application. If he does so, it means that two things then follow. On the 31st of the month the premises are again upon the landlord's hands. That we thought was unfair to the landlord.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite talked about it as a matter of principle. We are trying to be fair to both parties. It seemed to

us that it was not only fair to the tenant, but also fair to the landlord that, in a case like, he should, once an application has been made, have at least one month, whether the application is withdrawn or not, to make his own arrangements. If the Clause stands as it is and the tenant withdraws his application on the 27th of the month, then the landlord has at least one month, and so does the tenant. Each probably needs it, and each gets it.
6.0 p.m.
It is a highly undesirable arrangement for both if, in the event of the tenant deciding for perfectly good reasons that he will not go on with his application, he gets out in three days and the landlord has the premises on his hands in three days. It is not that the unscrupulous tenant will be impeded by the Amendment. He will make his application and will not turn up when it is due to be heard. The application will go before the court, and the tenant will have his tenancy. No doubt costs will be made against him, but it will not make much difference. He will have his extra tenancy and will then clear out. The Amendment will not put any difficulties in his way, but it will make it a great deal more difficult for a respectable landlord and tenant to make their arrangements.

Mr. John Foster: The difficulties that have been raised by the Solicitor-General arise from the fact that the period of notice that must be given is one month instead of three. His argument stems from the fact that the notice is so short that the county court may not have decided the point before the one month has expired. If the Solicitor-General thinks that there is any strength in his argument, I hope he will see that it comes from this fact. I hope that when he reconsiders the period of notice, he will reverse his argument against himself and see that if the notice were for three months the tenant could not be put in that difficulty.

Mr. Janner: On a point of order. Is not the hon. and learned Member referring to the previous Amendment on which we have just taken a decision?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and learned Member was putting the two Amendments together.

Mr. Foster: I am sure that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) does not wish to exclude any argument that is a good argument, even if it is linked up with an Amendment upon which a decision has been taken. I know that the hon. Member is in favour of the Bill. If my argument is a good one, I hope he will listen to it and be persuaded by it. I am particularly addressing my argument to him and to the Solicitor-General.
I admit that there is some force in the argument of the Solicitor-General, that we do not want to put the landlord in difficulty. It occurred to me that he might have put his argument a little stronger. It would be possible for the tenant after the one month to give his notice and put the landlord in the difficulty of the tenancy ending that very day. I should like to see the Solicitor-General having as strong an argument as possible, because he would then have a chance to persuade his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels).
The fallacy of the way these two Clauses are linked together is that the Solicitor-General is basing himself on the sine qua non of one month's notice. He must see that the injustice that might be caused in a rare case on the landlord is based on the fact that it is a one month's notice. The hardship our Amendment is trying to cure, which is not based on one month's notice, is due to the fact that the unscrupulous tenant can end the tenancy one month hence. That is making the position very difficult so far as these applications are concerned. The unscrupulous tenant is presumably a tenant on a short tenancy, and he is a tenant we should wish to discourage from making unscrupulous applications. He will be discouraged by the fact that he has to incur costs, or that his tenancy ends immediately.
I do not think the Solicitor-General paid sufficient attention to the fact of costs. It is a new theory on his part that only poor people are unscrupulous. He has told us that in the case of an unscrupulous tenant the question of costs would not make any difference. I do not subscribe to that. I believe that people with money might also be a little unscrupulous at times. I am addressing my argument to the observations of the Solicitor-General, that the poor tenant

would be upscrupulous and that the tenant who had means to pay would not be unscrupulous. I cannot tell whether his nodding means that he agrees with me or not.

The Solicitor-General: The nod was meant to indicate that I was listening.

Mr. Foster: There seems to be some good will on both sides. The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester has put his finger on the spot. He is quite right in saying that there are some difficulties that arise. Therefore, it would be much better if this Amendment were accepted and the difficulty mentioned by the Solicitor-General was got over in some way by altering the terms of notice on Report stage.

Mr. Janner: I am surprised at the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) seeking to reopen a matter on which we have already taken a decision. What he appears to want is to do something different at a later stage. The real trouble arises from the fact that Members opposite have overlooked their experience in dealing with county court matters. If they will throw their minds back to the time when they were less prosperous, when they were not addressing judges of the High Court, attending Courts of Appeal, the House of Lords and Privy Council cases, they will remember that if a person is unscrupulous and wants time he can get it easily enough.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Hear, hear.

Mr. Janner: My hon. and learned Friend is thinking of different spheres. He could use the county court pro cedure as it stands, when there is any difficulty for extension of the time. If he wants to make an application under the Rent Acts or to extend the periods of payments, judgment summonses and so on, he would very easily, even if this very proposal were inserted in the Bill, be able to avoid what hon. Members opposite want to avoid. It is a very simple matter. Instead of withdrawing the case it would be allowed to go to court and would incur the county court costs of the day, which would be very little more than the costs which would be incurred up to the time of the withdrawal of the case, because a person has to pay anyway the costs up to the withdrawal.
The amount involved would not be very large and counsel would not be allowed in the matter either. The result would be that the landlords would let the matter come to the date of hearing and they would appear and say that they had decided not to contest the case. The learned judge would give judgment for the respondent, and they would still have the amounts that they want. The Solicitor-General is right, because an unscrupulous tenant would, if he wanted to cheat a landlord and if this Amendment were accepted, be in a position to withdraw at any time, and so keep the landlord guessing as to what was going to happen and place him at a very big disadvantage.
Hon. Members opposite, who are so concerned about the landlords' interests, should study what the Solicitor-General has said, and they will save the landlords from great difficulty. At present the Amendment is such as would entitle the landlords to say, "God save us from our friends." We are advising the landlords from this side of the Committee to be more generous towards their friends, and not allow themselves to be placed in the hands of unscrupulous tenants who want to do this sort of thing. Hon. Members opposite would be well advised, instead of driving this decision to a Division, to agree to withdraw the Amendment altogether.

Mr. David Renton: The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), made an attractive plea as one of the landlords' friends, but I am not sure that the landlords would not necessarily thank him for what he said. I should like to take one point the hon. Member has been making, following up what the Solicitor-General has said, from the point of view of the landlords. First of all, what most landlords, especially if they have several properties of a similar kind in the same district, are anxious to do is to keep their tenancies running from a particular date in each year. It may be Ladyday or it may be Michaelmas. There are some tenancies which run from January, and the landlord might wish to retain the custom and system which has been observed in the past. Therefore, he will not mind very much if he has to let two or three days pass before he gets the final termination of the tenancy.
So far as I can see it, the point about this Clause is—and I am surprised that the arguments used by hon. Members opposite should have led them to the conclusion which they have—that we all know perfectly well that almost every kind of simple procedure ever sanctioned by this House has lent itself to abuse—perfectly legitimate abuse we may call it or if it is so desired, a legal racket. It has been used, however, for the purposes of obtaining a delay and Parliament has not intended that it should be so used. In this case we find Parliament is doing a most extraordinary thing. It has agreed to a new procedure which can specifically, by the very words which Parliament is using, be taken as Parliamentary sanction to one month's delay, and that one month's delay can be used for the purpose of abusive delay.
When we are faced with a position like that I suggest, if I may use a vulgar expression, we should not stick our necks out. We should be dealing with the abuses that there have been in the past rather than sanction a bigger form of abuse than was allowed before. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but that is the perfectly truthful position. An application can be put in for reasons, other than reasons of delay, and then suddenly it is withdrawn. From the moment it is withdrawn the person concerned has another month to go. In fact, in effect, very nearly two months' delay can be obtained as a result.
6.15 p.m.
It is quite obvious that, in order to overcome the difficulties which are created by this situation, the precise form of words necessary are not easy to find. I have listened carefully to this discussion, and I see the difficulty which the learned Solicitor-General has mentioned. Again, it is a question of weighing up the arguments on one side or the other, and coming down in favour of the side on which the maximum amount of reason would appear to lie. I should have thought that rather than lend ourselves to a process, which, as the Bill stands, is certain to lead in some cases to the abuse of a month's delay, we should contrive means—and this Amendment seems to do it not perfectly perhaps but as well as may be in the circumstances—to cut out that abuse, and nevertheless


preserve the right where it is legitimately used. For those reasons I suggest that the Amendment ought to be supported.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: We have had a fairly lengthy discussion on this small point, and our discussions are apt to get a little lengthy once the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) intervenes. I think we should seek to come to a conclusion on this matter.

Mr. Janner: rose—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am not giving way. The advice given by the hon. Member in his speech was not the best advice given by him, and it is advice which I would not advise anyone to take. I do not believe he is a good spokesman for the interests he was representing in his

speech. We have drawn attention to the real need, which could be cured without interfering with the main object of this Bill. It could be stopped and easily prevented, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not see it. I have paid attention to both his speeches. I thought his arguments the second time less convincing than the first. I am sorry that we disagree on that, because I thought we should have agreed here and that we would try to stop this Measure being abused. That we cannot do, so we can only express our views in the Division Lobby.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 178 Noes, 199.

Division No. 24.]
AYES
[6.20 p.m.


Alport, C. J. M.
Fisher, Nigel
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Amery, J, (Preston, N.)
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Foster, J. G.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Arbuthnot, John
Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marples, A. E.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Baker, P.
Gage, C. H.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)


Baldock J. M.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Medlicott, Brigadier F.


Baldwin, A. E.
Gammans, L. D.
Mellor, Sir J.


Banks, Col. C
Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
Molson, A. H. E.


Baxter, A. B.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Nabarro, G.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Nutting, Anthony


Bell, R. M.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)

Oakshott, H. D.


Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)
Harvey, Air Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Birch, Nigel
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Bishop, F. P.
Hay, John
Orr-Ewing, Ian. L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Black, C. W.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Boothby, R.
Heald, L. F.
Pickthorn, K.


Bossom, A. C
Heath, E. R.
Powell, J. Enoch


Bower, N.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W
Prescott, Stanley


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Higgs, J. M. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hill, Or. C. (Luton)
Profumo, J. D.


Braine, B.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Raikes, H. V.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hopkinson, H. L. D A.
Redmayne, M.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Brooke, H. (Hempstead)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Renton, D. L. M.


Browne, J. N. (Govan)
Howard, G, R. (St. Ives)
Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Roper, Sir H.


Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.
Hurd, A. R.
Ropner, Col. L


Burden, Squadron-Leader F. A
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Ross, Sir R. D (Londonderry)


Butcher, H. W.
Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Russell, R. S.


Carson, Hon. E.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D


Channon, H.
Johnson, Howard S. (Kemptown)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Clarke, Brig T. H. (Portsmouth, W.)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Scott, Donald


Colegate, A.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Shepherd, W. S. (Cheadle)


Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Crouch, R. F.
Linstead, H. N.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. R (N. Fylde)


Crowder, Capt. John F E. (Finchley)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Stevens, G. P.


Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Storey, S.


de Chair, S.
Low, A. R. W.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Deedes, W. F.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Studholme, H. G.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Sutcliffe, H.


Donner, P. W.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Teeling, William


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Thompson, R. H M. (Croydon, W.)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thorneycroft, G. E P. (Monmouth)


Duthie, W. S.
McKibbin, A.
Tilney, John


Ecoles, D. M.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Touche, G. C.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Turner, H. F. L




Turton, R. H.
Ward, Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Tweedsmuir, Lady
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Vane, W. M. F.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon C
Wood, Hon. R.


Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Watkinson, H.



Vosper, D. F.
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)
White, J. Baker (Canterbury)
Major Conant and


Wakefield, Sir W. W. (St. Marylebone)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E.)
Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.


Walker-Smith, D. C.
Wills, G.





NOES


Adams, Richard
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Orbach, M.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
George, Lady M. Lloyd
Padley, W. E.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Gibson, C. W.
Paget, R. T.


Ayles, W, H.
Gilzean, A.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)


Bacon, Miss A
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Pannell, T. C.


Baird, J.
Granville, E. (Eye)
Pargiter, G. A


Balfour, A.
Greenwood, A. W. J (Rossendale)
Parker, J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A J
Grenfell, D. R.
Paton, J.


Bartley, P.
Grey, C. F.
Pearson, A.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Popplewell, E


Benn, Hon. A. N Wedgwood
Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)
Porter, G.


Benson, G.
Grimond, J.
Proctor, W. T


Beswick, F.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Rankin, J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Reeves, J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Blyton, W. R.
Hall, Rt. Hn. W. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Reid, W. (Camlachie)


Bottomley, A. G.
Hamilton, W. W.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Bowden, H. W.
Hargreaves, A.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Harrison, J.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hayman, F. H.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Henderson, Rt. Hon, A (Rowley Regis)
Royle, C.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Herbison, Miss M.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Hobson, C. R.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Holman, P.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Brown, George (Belper)
Houghton, Douglas
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hoy, J.
Simmons, C. J.


Burton, Miss E.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)
Slater, J.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir F.


Champion, A. J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Sparks, J. A.


Chetwynd, G. R
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Clunie, J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Cocks, F. S.
Janner, B.
Stross, Dr. B.


Coldrick, W.
Jay, D. P. T.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Collick, P.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Collindridge, F.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough W.)
Keenan, W.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Cooper, J. (Deptford)
King, H. M.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham)
Lee, F. (Newton)
Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lindgren, G S.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Tomney, F.


Daines, P.
MacColl, J. E.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McGhee, H. G.
Ungoed-Thomas, A. L


Darling, G. (Hillsboro)
McInnes, J.
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Viant, S P.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Reading, N.)
Wallace, H. W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McLeavy, F.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M (Bradford, C.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Weitzman, D.


Deer, G.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Delargy, H J.
Manuel, A. C.
West, D. G.


Donnelly, D.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)


Dye, S.
Mellish, R. J.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Messer, F.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Edelman, M.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Wigg, George


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Mikardo, Ian
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Moeran, E. W.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Ewart, R.
Monslow, W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Fernyhough, E.
Moody, A. S.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Field, Capt. W. J
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Huyton)


Finch, H. J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Moyle, A.
Wise, Major F. J.


Follick, M.
Mulley, F. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Foot, M. M.
Neal. H.
Younger, Hon Kenneth


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.



Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Hannan and Mr. Wilkins.


Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I should like to put a point to the Solicitor-General. When the committee considered the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, there was a great deal of evidence that the Act had become virtually a dead letter. It was suggested by one member of the committee that it had succeeded in enabling people to negotiate settlements, but there was little statistical evidence to support that view. It was stated by members of great experience that one reason why the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, had completely failed was because the tenant had an obligation in regard to giving notices and occupiers could very rarely remember dates, and particularly the date of expiry, the occupier was nearly always out of time. Any hon. Member who cares to refer to the report of the full committee will find that this matter was dealt with in paragraph 204 of that report, and in subsection 2 (a) of this Clause.
If a tenant forgets to make his application, I can see no provision at all that will enable the tribunal to consider the matter, or any power to give relief such as they have in other Acts, to give to a tenant who is out of time through mistake or misunderstanding or other reasonable cause. I agree that paragraph 204 refers to proposals that notices should be given 12 months before termination, but I take the same argument to apply precisely to the present case. The committee said:
A tenant holding under a tenancy for a fixed term may lose altogether the opportunity of renewal if he fails to initiate his claim at least 12 months before the tenancy comes to an end. The Interim Report did not propose to relieve the tenant of the responsibility for making the first move but upon consideration it appears to us that no very great hardship would be caused to the landlord if he were required to give the tenant notice of his rights under the Act. Our suggestion is that the tenant should be entitled to give his notice of claim at any time during the three years next preceding the termination of the tenancy but not later than 1 month after the service on him of a notice by the landlord adequately calling his attention to his rights under the Act.
I suggest that that really should be the position. The tenant should make his application, but the landlord should not be able to terminate the occupancy without giving the tenant a reminder of some kind informing him of the date of termination or his rights under the Act. In

any event, I suggest that the general law in these matters should be applied by an amending Clause so that the appropriate tribunal should be empowered on due and proper application to relieve a tenant from the forfeiture of his claim by mistake or other reasonable cause and provision should be made for a just hearing of the matter notwithstanding the tenant's omission.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10.—(POWER OF COURT TO GRANT NEW TENANCIES OF SHOPS.)

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I beg to move, in page 9, line 2, to leave out "may" and to insert "shall."

The Deputy-Chairman: The next two Amendments, line 3, to leave out "if," and to insert "unless," and in line 3, to leave out "reasonable," and to insert "unreasonable," which deal with the same point, might conveniently be considered as well.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Thank you, Sir Charles. The purpose of the three Amendments is to give the tenant a prima fade right of renewal instead of, as provided by the Bill, putting the onus on the tenant to establish a case for renewal. This is merely to make the provisions of the Bill conform to what is already the practice of the good landlord. If there is a tenant in occupation, other things being equal, the good landlord would give the continuation of the tenancy to the sitting tenant. Similarly, I suggest that that behaviour should be embodied in the Bill.
Two points should be very much borne in mind in considering this matter. The first is that this is purely an interim Measure for the very short period of two years and in that case it is surely the obvious practical course to give the tenant the prima fade right of renewal so that his position can be considered fully when it comes to dealing with permanent legislation.
The second point that I wish to emphasise is that, as hon. Members opposite have mentioned time and time again in the course of the debate, we are dealing now with a period of scarcity in the provision of shop premises, and because of that it is most important also to bear


in mind that the Majority Report recommendations were not at all directed to a period of scarcity. The Majority Report recommendations dealt with a period when it was contemplated that there would be plenty of premises available and permanent legislation—the opposite to what the Bill is dealing with; we are dealing with a period of scarcity of premises and temporary legislation. It is, therefore, no argument to refer to the Majority Report recommendation that the onus should be placed on a tenant.
I shall rely on three authorities in support of my contention. One of them is the Interim Report recommendation which dealt with exactly the same conditions as the conditions with which we are dealing in the Bill, a period of scarcity and interim legislation. Secondly, I shall rely on the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), and I hope that he will support me in this Amendment. Thirdly, I shall rely on an Act passed by this Government, the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act.
The Interim Report considered the matter very fully and recommended a prima facie right of renewal. The reasons are set out in paragraphs 49 and 50 on page 17 of the Interim Report. These paragraphs pose the case so succinctly that it will lessen the duration of my argument if I quote them. The Report says:
If the general practice of good landlords is to grant renewals on reasonable terms to well-behaved tenants—and we are satisfied that, other things being equal, this is their general practice—their interests cannot be seriously damaged by a short-term measure enforcing this rule on the unconscionable. Further, we think that as an emergency measure the first method has the practical advantage of simplicity and of easy enforcement.
The first method is to give a prima facie right of renewal to the tenant. The Report goes on:
If the right of renewal is conceded in the general case, it is relatively easy to define the broad circumstances in which a landlord may reasonably be allowed to regain possession, even if there is room for different views as to detail. If he desires possession he will be able to justify his desire by giving a positive reason, e.g., getting rid of a 'bad payer,' pulling down a block of premises, extending his own business, etc.

I would point out that these exceptions in favour of the landlord are embodied in the Bill. Those are the considerations which, among others, induced the Interim Report to recommend that the tenant should have a prima facie right of renewal.
The reasons were also considered in detail in the Minority Report of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. L. Hale) and myself, and I should like to quote paragraph 12, on page 128, of the Minority Report:
The reasons for preferring a prima facie right of renewal for the tenant … are set out in paragraphs 48 to 52 inclusive of the Interim Report.
We go on:
They are severely practical reasons and it was for those practical reasons that members of the Committee, holding different views of principle on the relationship of landlord and tenant, were able to join in recommending that the tenant should have a prima facie right of renewal. Some members only agreed to this course in an emergency where they thought practical considerations should be paramount. But the practical considerations, emergency or no emergency, were clearly considered even by these colleagues, who have since subscribed to the majority Report, as in favour of the prima facie right.
Later the Report says:
The strong objection of a prima facie right of renewal in the tenant is founded not on practical considerations, but on ideological considerations—the landlord's right of property, it is held, should not be impinged upon to the extent of giving the tenant a prima facie right of renewal.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wirral, in his final Report, on page 157, says:
In my view the appropriate method of dealing with this situation is to provide as a short-term remedy a prima facie right of renewal. …
If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes me to quote any other part of his report I will gladly do so.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The hon. and learned Gentleman might finish that sentence.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Certainly. The hon. and learned Gentleman goes on:
… subject to certain 'just exceptions' or cases in which the right to renewal would not be applicable. Such a remedy was proposed in the Interim Report of this Committee … of which I was a signatory.
I quite agree. The "just exceptions" are provided for in the Bill. The hon.


and learned Gentleman emphasises that in paragraph 5 of his Report. It says:
The Interim Report, however, did provide an easily comprehensible method of dealing with an abnormal situation. …
If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes I will go on:
… I regret that it was not implemented in 1949 by legislation to cover a limited period of, say, four years.
The Shops Act, which was passed by this Government to ease the situation in Scotland in the same way as this Bill is designed to ease the situation, provided in Section 1 (3):
Notwithstanding anything in the last foregoing subsection, the sheriff may, if in all the circumstances he thinks it reasonable to do so, dismiss any application.…
I agree that is not as unambiguously worded in favour of a prima facie right as I should like, but the indication from this Bill is that the intention was that there should not be a dismissal of the application unless the court thought it was reasonable—in other words, a prima facie right in favour of the tenant.
For these reasons, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to consider this Amendment favourably. It is in accordance with the good landlord's practice, it makes for greater precision in the court in dealing with it and avoids many practical difficulties, it is simply a recommendation for a short-term Measure, and is the course that has been recommended by every person who has subscribed to the general principle of protection during a scarcity period.

Mr. Hay: I hope the Government will resist this series of Amendments, because I regard them as wrecking Amendments. I do not think that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas) has appreciated that the position he wishes to bring about will not be achieved by Amendments to this Clause. As I understand Part II of the Bill, it provides this right of renewal, but subject to the exercise of judicial discretion, because Clause 10 is written on the basis that the court shall have the right of considering whether, in all the circumstances surrounding the application, it is reasonable to grant it. I should have thought that was a reasonable provision to make.
As to the question of prima facie right of renewal, I express no opinion at this

stage except to say that as the Bill is drafted these Amendments are out of place. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had wished to do so, it would have been more appropriate for him to provide this prima facie right of renewal when we were dealing with Clause 8. On the general point, however, I do not think it can be denied that it is to the advantage not only of the landlord and of the tenant, but of the business community —those who take and let premises as a whole—that there should be an opportunity given for a court to review any application made.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is under a complete misapprehension. I am urging, not that the tenant should not have to make application to a course—of course, he must—but that, having done so, he should have the prima facie right of renewal.

Mr. Hay: That is what I had in mind but I was putting it another way. As I understand the position, the hon. and learned Gentleman wants the tenant to have prima facie right of renewal, but if this Amendment were inserted in the Bill the effect would be that the hands of the court would be completely tied. [HON. MEMBERS: "No.") Then let me read the wording of Clause 10 which, with the Amendments, would be as follows
Subject to the provisions of this section, on an application under this Part of this Act duly made the court shall, unless in all the circumstances of the case it appears unreasonable so to do, order that there shall be granted to the tenant a tenancy for such period.…
If that is what the hon. and learned Gentleman intends, I suggest that the form of words already in the Bill is far more appropriate, because he is trying to bring in a double negative. Frankly, I cannot see the reason for the Amendments unless that is what he has in mind.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I listened carefully to what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas), and I do not think there is any great substance in this point, which is very little more than drafting. I hope, therefore, that we shall not have to spend too long on it because time is running rather short. Of course one recognises that every good landlord will want to keep on a good tenant, no matter


how long he has been there. Scarcity value does not affect that. All those cases will not come before the court at all, but will be agreed outside the court, as they are today. In our big cities it is quite astonishing the length of time that certain tenants have occupied premises, although it may be that the individual leases are comparatively short.
Putting on one side that category of the good landlord and the good tenant because they will not come within the bounds of this Bill, we are left with the case where there is either a not so good tenant or a not so good landlord. Clause 10 gives the power to grant the renewal when it appears reasonable to do so. The only effect of this wording is to shift the onus of proof. By shifting the onus of proof the hon. and learned Member is not incorporating into this Clause the practice that good landlords adopt towards good tenants. That is where I think there was a fallacy in the speech of the hon. and learned Member. There is not much in this point, but if it is the case of judging it a bit more in favour of either the good tenant against the bad landlord or in favour of the bad tenant against the good landlord, then I am inclined to think it should not be made. For this reason: that bearing in mind that part of this Bill will apply to any tenant—even if he has only come in a week before the expiry of the lease—we might get into difficulties if we adopted the wording proposed, since it would have the effect of tying the hands of the court. In considering whether it was reasonable to grant a renewal I would prefer that the court should not be limited in the way suggested.

Mr. Janner: It is not quite as simple as the hon. and learned Gentleman purports. There has been an interesting example of the question of onus in the Rent Restriction Acts, on the question of whether there should be proof by the landlord or proof by the tenant that there is greater hardship. It is a very material point. It is extremely important that the court should have the opportunity of knowing where it is going to lend weight on the question of general hardship. And it is not only that question. The Clause as drafted is peculiar because it says:
Subject to the provisions of this section, on an application under this Part of this Act duly made the court may."—

Let us look at the next words—
if in all the circumstances of the case it appears reasonable so to do, order.…
The word "shall" must be introduced there because if it is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case and on such terms and conditions as the court in all the circumstances thinks reasonable, it is obvious that the court "shall" make the order, not "may."

Mr. Walker-Smith: Why?

Mr. Janner: The court is entitled to regard the word "may" as meaning that it has some extra discretion. Otherwise, why use the word "may"? The word "shall" should be used. That is point number one, and is quite obvious. [Interruption.] No, this is not a matter for discretion. It should not be within the discretion of a judge.
Therefore I suggest, quite apart from anything else, that this matter requires further consideration before the next stage of the Bill. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will regard the question of onus of proof as an important one and will give the tenant the right of not being the person on whom the onus is placed. The responsibility should be the other way round, so that when the court comes to decide the question, all other things being equal, the tenant should have the benefit.

The Solicitor-General: When we drafted the Clause we had very closely in mind the provisions of the Scottish Act. As it stands, the Clause provides that the court, if it appears reasonable to do so, may order the grant of a new tenancy. In other words, it seizes the court of the whole matter. It puts it within the purview of the court to take all relevant circumstances into account. No doubt, in a proper case, the court will have not the least hesitation in saying that the ordinary consequence is that a new tenancy should be granted.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas) wishes us to depart from that drafting because, he says, after all this is really the interim stage and. whatever may be appropriate to the final scheme, for a reason mentioned in the Interim Report we should in this interim stage shift the burden rather away from the landlord on to the tenant. To begin


with, it seems to me that the drafting of my hon. and learned Friend will make very little difference as a matter of law, and that as a matter of practice it will make next to no difference. If one envisages any ordinary case coming before a judge who considers all the circumstances, then it seems to me that as a natural result it is most unlikely that he would come to a different conclusion, whichever form of wording is adopted.
In those circumstances and faced with that situation, what is the best course to follow? We have thought, and I still think, that the best course to follow is to adopt the wording which is already in the Scottish Shops Act. My hon. and learned Friend says, however, that if we adopt that, we shall be adopting the wording which he proposes, but he is not quite right about that. The wording in question which we have taken as our model is in Section 1 (2) of that Act, where the wording is to all intents and purposes identical with what we have chosen.
My hon. and learned Friend quoted the following subsection, but that is a refinement of subsection (2), and subsection (2), surely, is the material precedent which we should take into account in the drafting of the present Clause. If it was likely to lead to any substantially different results in practice, there would, I should have thought, be a stronger case for considering a departure from the wording of the Scottish Act, but as I have said, I cannot conceive that there would be much difference in practice.
What would be the difference so far as the court was concerned? The court would have this situation to deal with. It would know that in the Scottish Act there was the wording which appears in subsection (2). It would then be advised of the contrast of the wording which my hon. and learned Friend desires us to substitute for the wording of the Scottish Act; and if we are trying to make for clarity and to give the court something which it can really follow as a matter of guidance, it seems to me undesirable, unless there is some very substantial reason in honesty and justice, to depart from the wording which has already been tried and found to be officious for the purpose for which it is desired.
I hope that for those reasons the Committee will agree that it would be unnecessary and unwise to depart from what really is a formula which has been already considered by the Scottish courts and which, as such, can be equally considered by the English courts, and to adopt in preference to it a formula which differs in a sense which will not be altogether easy to appreciate by the learned judges who construe it. The object of the change would not be perfectly obvious to them, and they would be left in the situation that there is doubt about exactly what the legislature were trying to enact.
I hope that the Committee will agree that the wording we have used is quite satisfactory. In the case of the landlord who is inclined to grant a tenancy to a sitting tenant who has proved to be a satisfactory tenant, if the matter comes before the court at all, as it probably would not, as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, very likely that would be a circumstance which would weigh heavily with the learned judge.
I will endeavour to sum up what I have been saying. Nothing really of advantage is to be gained. What is proposed will make very little difference in practice. By departing from the terms of the Scottish Act, for no obvious and apparent reason, we would simply induce doubt in the mind of the judge, because he would not have been able to discern as a matter of any reasonable certainty what is the object of the departure. Therefore, I strongly urge the Committee to say that it is much safer in the long run to adhere to the formula which we already have and which has already been put into the Scottish Act, which deals with a very similar situation. It is an Act which is enacted year after year, and there is really no difference of principle which would warrant or make desirable a departure from the terms of the Scottish Act.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I really must press this matter a little further, because I think that the arguments which my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has put forward are quite untenable and unacceptable. He started off with the proposition that there is really very little difference in effect between the Clause as drafted and the way in which it is proposed that it should be drafted, and he quarrelled with the Interim Report, which


was very detailed and very strong on this subject. What are the grounds of my right hon. and learned Friend for saying that there is very little difference? What he means, as I understand it, is that the word "may" will be interpreted as the word "shall." Certainly he has put forward no single reason which the court could consider other than the reasons to which my hon. Friend the Member for Liecester, North-West (Mr. Janner) has referred.
Is it reasonable or unreasonable to make the proposed alteration? Taking into account the exceptions, there then arises the question, "Is there any over-Tiding discretion of the court?" Having made up our minds on this point, how could that discretion be applied, and what other facts are there which the court can consider? My right hon. and learned Friend says that there are no other facts and that, therefore, the court will say in effect that they have been given what is expressed to be a discretionary power but that, having considered all the relevant matters, they will regard it as an obligatory power if the relevant matters do not disclose any appropriate and proper exceptions. In other words, says my right hon. and learned Friend in effect, the word "may" means "shall." I cannot think of any worse argument to address to the House of Commons than to say that we should not alter the word "may" to "shall" because the court will regard it as "shall" and that in view of that it is not necessary to make the Amendment which is now being pressed.
The second argument of the Solicitor-General was to talk about a totally different Measure for Scotland, dealing with totally different conditions, and to say that there was a totally different Clause which my hon. and learned Friend thought meant one thing but which, my right hon. and learned Friend suggests, means another. My hon. and learned Friend quoted that Clause as supporting his point of view. The Solicitor-General quoted it as supporting the Clause as drafted. That seemed to me a reason for clearing it up and making the position certain.
I come now to the third point. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), referred to the Rent Restriction Acts and all the complicated decisions which we get. Anyone

who has had experience of that knows that the right of discretion vested in the courts is often considered by the court to be an intolerable responsibility. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] If the hon. Member who denies that refers to anyone who practices in the courts, he will find that, whether it is disrespectful or not, one uses the terms "landlord's judge" and "tenant's judge" because such judges, quite properly and definitely, have to apply not merely their knowledge of the law but, because of their discretion, their views on the law of landlord and tenant.
7.0 p.m.
I remember one very good judge, an able county court judge, who always started off with the proposition, "The tenant has vacated his premises without notice and broken his obligation." That is the point of view expressed from the other side of the Committee and it would not have been expressed on this side of the Committee. I think it desirable in a matter of this kind that the court should be charged with a duty, which every member of the Interim Committee suggested they should be charged with, of determining the ascertainable facts on the evidence and not given an overriding discretion.
I would refer my right hon. and learned Friend to the Uthwatt Interim Report. I know everyone in the Committee would say that there could not have been any more able or learned chairman of that Interim Committee, or one whose views were more widely respected. The whole of paragraphs 49, 50 and 51 of that Report consists of long reasoned arguments for the granting of a prima facie right of renewal. That was signed by all the members of the committee except two and they, in their short dissenting Report, did not dissent from this point at all. In all essential purposes it was a completely unanimous view of that committee presided over by one of the most distinguished of Lord Justices of Appeal.
This is a matter we should not dismiss lightly. It is important from two points of view, from the point of view of legislation we are now enacting and the legislation we hope to seen enacted.
Paragraph 48 starts by saying that there are
two possible methods of approach to the problem of providing greater security of tenure for business premises.


The purpose of one is to give prima facie right of renewal, subject to just exceptions, and it goes on to argue in paragraph 50, in the opening sentence:
If the right of renewal is conceded in the general case it is relatively easy to define the broad circumstances in which a landlord may reasonably he allowed to regain possession.
It first defines the prima facie right of renewal and then defines exceptions. It goes on to show what is sought to be done by this Amendment, to lay down what is the decent standard of conduct of the good landlord. It says that it was the practice of the good landlord to concede to the tenant a prima facie right of renewal unless there were some overriding special circumstances.
I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will consider this matter again. May I summarise by saying that if he says there is not much difference between the two there can be no possible objection to rejecting the recommendation and, if he suggests there is a substantial difference, then that is a difference which is most material to the tenant's application. My right hon. and learned Friend ought to accept the Amendment or define the measure of difference, or tell the Committee what are the circumstances which in his view the court have a right to consider apart from matters defined in the Clause.

The Solicitor-General: This is a point of difficulty and obviously the Committee are rather sharply and, I think, acutely divided. But it is also a point on which there possibly may be two views, and I suggest to my hon. Friends, having put the arguments they think necessary, that they might think fit to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment on this understanding. I certainly do not give an undertaking at all, but we will consider what has been said by my hon. Friends and what hon. Members opposite have said, and we will consider if we think it would be desirable to make any change in the direction suggested. I hope that with that assurance, given without any undertaking, they will agree that the matter is difficult and needs further consideration and will, perhaps, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I wish to make a comment as my name has been mentioned more than once in this debate. I think there is considerable substance in what

has been put forward and, with certain qualifications, I do not withdraw my signature from the Report. I think there is a good deal to be said for simplicity in this matter, but I would add this—and I can do so with the greater confidence as I think I have the agreement of the two hon. Members opposite who have put forward this Amendment—I think this matter is tied up with the next Amendment on the Order Paper in my name.
What I do not like about the Clause as it stands is the complete and absolute discretion given to the county courts. Speaking for myself I would be rather in favour of prima facie right of renewal and a fair amount of discretion, and I think the two things should go together. Subsection (3) does bear on this point to a considerable extent because it apparently seeks to lay down where the onus of proof shall be. I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if he is reconsidering the matter, as he should, he should also have regard to what appears in that subsection.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I cannot agree with everything said by my right hon. and learned Friend, but I appreciate that it is a matter of some difficulty to see exactly what its effect is. I very much appreciate what my right hon. and learned Friend has said about the consideration that he will give to the matter. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: I propose to call the next Amendment, in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), in page 9, line 5, to leave out the second "such," and to insert "a fair market." With it, if the Committee agree, we could discuss the Amendments also in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South, and the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas), both to line 19.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I beg to move, line 5, to leave out the second word "such" and to insert a fair market."
I agree with the course you suggest. Major Milner, and I think it would be extremely convenient to discuss the definitions at the same time as we discuss this Amendment. The insertion of the


words "a fair market rent" and any attempt to define what the rents should be does not involve extra application to the court and there is no question of putting forward something which will involve further litigation. As the Clause stands, when the application is made to the court for renewal, the rent at which it is to be granted is left entirely at the discretion of the county court and I do not think that is satisfactory. This puts far too great a burden on the county court.
Mention has just been made of the different views which may be taken by various county court judges. Circumstances may change from place to place and in some places there are county court judges, sitting in the same courts on different days, who may have completely different views of this matter. If we leave the matter entirely to the discretion of the county court, there is serious danger of these applications being dealt with in entirely different ways in different parts of the country and that would not be satisfactory. In the same town we may have a similar application dealt with in a different manner because a different judge may be sitting the day when the application comes forward. I therefore urge the Committee to assist the court in some way by putting in some sort of guidance on this question of rent.
We have suggested the insertion of the term "a fair market" rent. In the further Amendment we seek to define that fair market rent. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas), and the other hon. Members opposite, in whose names there is an Amendment following the second of the two we are discussing, also seek to give guidance to the court in estimating the rent at which a renewal is to be granted. Their Amendment is in page 9, line 19, at the end, to insert:
In estimating the rent the Court:

(a) shall have regard to the general level of rental values obtaining in respect of comparable premises in the locality and to the practice of a good landlord in according preferential terms to a sitting tenant; and
(b) shall take into account the other terms of the proposed lease; but
(c) shall not take into account any increase in the rental value of the premises which is due either to goodwill which may

have become attached to the premises by reason of the tenant
or his predecessor in title having carried on thereat a particular trade or business, or to any improvements to the premises carried out by the tenant or his predecessors in title otherwise than in pursuance of an obligation owed to the landlord or his predecessors in title."
I do not think there is a great deal of difference between the two forms of words. To examine first the similarities may be the best way of trying to achieve agreement. In our later Amendment we say that:
'a fair market rent' shall be such rent as in the opinion of the court a willing lessee other than the tenant would agree to give and a willing lessor would agree to accept for the premises having regard to the terms of the tenancy …
Then we say that it must be:
irrespective of any goodwill … and irrespective also of the value of any improvements for which compensation would be payable if no new tenancy were granted.
Stopping there and looking at the Amendment in the names of Members opposite, one sees that they suggest that the court should have regard:
to the general level of rental values obtaining in respect of comparable premises in the locality and to the practice of a good landlord in according preferential terms to a sitting tenant;
We considered this matter in the Interim Report, and I think that the form of words which has been chosen by Members opposite in their Amendment follows very closely the wording of the Interim Report. I suggest that there is not much difference between that and our Amendment, which follows more nearly the wording of the Majority Report in the Final Report. The difference, so far as I have been able to ascertain, lies in the words:
the practice of a good landlord in according preferential terms to a sitting tenant.
I should have no objection to that proviso being included in the appropriate definition.
Then the proposed Amendment of hon. Gentlemen opposite goes on:
and
(b) shall take into account the other terms of the proposed lease;
That corresponds to:
having regard to the terms of the tenancy, …


in our Amendment. Their Amendment goes on:
and
(c) shall not take into account any increase in the rental value of the premises which is due either to goodwill which may have become attached to the premises … or to any improvements to the premises …
which again follows our form of words. We say in our Amendment:
that in estimating the rent which a willing lessee would agree to give for the premises the Court may disregard any offer made to the lessor which appears to the court to he substantially in excess of the rent which might be expected for the premises.
That is an attempt to define the so-called freak offer, which on both sides of the Committee we seek to have excluded from the definition.
I suggest that there is not a great deal of difference between these two definitions. I do not propose to argue in great detail the actual merits of the wording, but in principle I think that those who have put their names to both these Amendments are really agreed that we must seek to assist the court to some extent, and that if there is to be a prima facie right of renewal it is fairer in the interests of both parties that it should be at what is called the fair market rental, excluding the freak offer.
Although the suggestion will be made that this is only a temporary standstill provision, my own view, as I have indicated, is that Part II of the Bill is very much better than Part I. That is certainly one of the reasons why I did not vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. I think that Part II is well worth saving. It may very well be that it will have to be extended from year to year —I do not know—but I think that the Government should be very careful in regarding Part II as a purely temporary standstill Measure. It is based on much sounder ground, which could be made even sounder by seeking to give some assistance to the court in this matter of rent.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I agree, of course, with the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) that we both wish to give greater precision to the instructions under which the judge is to act. I also agree that we both wish

to exclude from the judge's consideration in fixing the rent both the improvements that have been made and the attachment of any goodwill by reason of the tenant having carried on a business or trade at those particular premises. The difference between us, or which did come between us before the hon. and learned Member spoke, is between the words:
shall have regard to the general level at rental values ….
and the words in the Opposition Amendment:
such rent as in the opinion of the court a willing lessee other than the tenant would agree to give and a willing lessor would agree to accept …
The other difference is with regard to the words in our Amendment:
to the practice of a good landlord in according preferential terms to a sitting tenant.
I understand that, so far as the hon. and learned Member is concerned, he makes no further objection to that provision. I propose, therefore, merely to acknowledge that it is dealt with in pages 66 and 67 of the Majority Report, and I will not take up any further time in arguing that provision.
I return to the difference between the lessor and lessee criterion and the general level of rental values criterion. The difference between them is that we would exclude scarcity value while the Opposition would not exclude scarcity values except for a freak rental. They would, by their proviso, exclude the exceptional, mountainous, solitary offer; we would exclude not only that but the rise due to the scarcity, which means a more widespread level of criterion.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: But the wording of the hon. and learned Member's Amendment is:
shall have regard to the general level at rental values obtaining in respect of comparable premises …
which seems to me bound to contain a certain amount of what is called scarcity value.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I am afraid we are getting down to splitting hairs. I quite agree with the point that the hon. and learned Member has made that the rents of comparable premises would include a certain amount due to scarcity values, but they would include a vast


amount not due to scarcity values. It is quite true, as the hon. and learned Member says, that there is a certain amount of scarcity value involved but taken by and large it is fairly limited, and the difference between us is that the Opposition wish to confine the provision to the exclusion of freak rentals and we want to exclude much more.
I wish to put forward the argument as to why our proposal should be accepted rather than that of the Opposition. The Majority Report dealt with this matter, and it is the proposals in that Report which have been adopted by the Opposition. Those proposals were designed not for a period of scarcity but for a period when plenty of alternative premises were available. The Majority Report was also designed for permanent legislation. Here we are dealing with the very opposite conditions; we are dealing with a period of scarcity and with an interim, standstill, temporary Bill only. Therefore, the Interim Report is the one the circumstances of which are identical with the circumstances which we are contemplating, and with which we are attempting to deal in this Bill.
The hon. and learned Member for Wirral signed the Interim Report, so that I am not surprised to hear him say that there was not such a great deal of difference between us; but what difference there is between us is in favour of the Interim Report recommendation rather than the Majority Report recommendation.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman agree with me that, whatever difference there may be between us about it, there is a gulf between both of us and the Government?

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: No, I do not think there is in effect. I think that the difference between the Government and both of us is that we want greater precision. The difference between the whole of this side of the Committee, including the Government, and the other side of the Committee is that we wish to produce a fairer rental criterion for the ordinary tenant than is put forward by the Opposition. I prefer the Interim Report to the Majority Report and I call it to my aid.
I should like also to refer to the speech by the hon. Member for The High Peak

(Mr. Molson) on Second Reading. I regret that he is not here now. I told him I should refer to his speech, but unfortunately he is engaged in Parliamentary business in another part of the House and is therefore unable to be in the Chamber. I wish to refer in particular to the part of the speech where the hon. Member replied to an intervention by the Attorney-General, but before I come to that I will read the preceding passage:
A constituent of mine who has occupied a shop for 10 years has paid a yearly rent of £65. When the rent was due for renewal he obtained the opinion of a valuer, who suggested that at present a fair rent would he £90 a year, an increase of approximately 50 per cent. over the 10-year period. The landlord sought to obtain a rent of £250. We on this side of the House do not desire to enable landlords to take advantage of a temporary condition when there is an acute shortage of accommodation of that kind. I suggest that it is necessary that the county courts should he given guidance as to what would be a reasonable increase in the rent as a result of the change in the purchasing value of money.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I listened with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman has just said. Does he think that we should have some provision to exclude scarcity value?
Then the hon. Member for The High Peak replied:
Yes, that is my personal opinion. I entirely agree that scarcity value should he excluded."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 456.]
I hope the Government will be able to accept the Interim Report recommendation on this; to give more precise guidance to the county courts than is contained in this Bill, and to make it in such a form as to eliminate scarcity value in deciding what is the rent.

Mr. Weitzman: I agree that some criterion ought to be given to the county court judges in determining what is a fair rental value. There is one criticism I would make of both the Amendments. They both use the words, "irrespective of any goodwill" which might become attached to the premises by reason of the tenant's trade.
Hon. Members will be familiar with the words used in the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, and they must realise the enormous amount of litigation which has arisen as a result of the way in which these words have been used. We have had all sorts of definitions of "goodwill." Hon. Members will remember the analogies drawn and the comparisons


with the animal kingdom—the rat, cat and dog, and so on. It would be very unfortunate if in another Act of Parliament we allowed these words to go in and the tenant or the landlord to be subjected to the perils of litigation in the way they have been since the Act of 1927 was passed.
I suggest that some words ought to be used which would define with precision what is meant by "goodwill" so that the risk of litigation in the way I have suggested would not arise. Subject to that criticism, I agree that at any rate some Amendment ought to be accepted by the Government which gives some guiding principle to county court judges in determining what the rental value should be.

The Attorney-General: The Amendments from both sides have been most attractively argued, and are not unattractive in their object; but our view about each of them is that, far from simplifying proceedings in the county court, in practice they would be likely to complicate them, in the sense that they are much more likely to lead to widespread employment of valuers and examination of other cases of purchases, sales and rentals in the area over the past period, and so generally to result in the whole procedure being more litigious than it would otherwise be.
I am sure hon. and learned Members have, as I have, great confidence in the county court judges of this country. They are very close to the people with whom they have to deal, and they are familiar with the circumstances existing in their areas. When they are required, as sometimes they are by Statute, to sit rather like a Cadi under a palm tree and administer justice in that way, they generally exercise that jurisdiction with great success, and with justice and satisfaction to all parties concerned.
Moreover—and this in practice is, I think, a point which hon. and learned Members on both sides of the Committee will appreciate as being true—if the matter is left to the county court judges, and rather at large, without any set formula having been laid down in the statute which the parties themselves can work out, or think they can work out, in the event they are far more likely to negotiate a settlement between themselves on the terms which are agreeable to

them, if not in regard to the other conditions of the tenancy, at any rate in regard to the rent which should be paid, if the county court judge decides that a new tenancy should be granted at all.
In reaching that general conclusion we have been very much impressed by the experience in the Scottish Act. Points which have been made in the course of our discussion on these two Amendments could equally well have been made in the discussion on the Scottish Bill when it was before the House, and could equally well have arisen in practice before the courts in Scotland administering that Act. But the practice shows that they have not arisen. So far as we have been able to ascertain, this has never been a cause of difficulty. When cases do come before the courts for assessment of the rent, the local courts do what they think is right in all the circumstances.
But in practice the rent point is very often a point which does not come before the court at all; perhaps for the very reason that neither party knows what is the formula. Neither party knows which view the county court judge—or the sheriff in Scotland—will take. Therefore, each party thinks it better, rather than to gamble on the result, to arrive at a negotiated settlement in regard to the rent, in the event of the judge deciding to extend a new lease.
I know that it is very nice to try to set out by Statute rigid formulae of one kind or another to control the activities of the courts. When that is done—and very often we do it—the courts say, "Well, we are within the iron framework of this Statute. We have to apply this thing. It may not be very just in the circumstances of the particular case, but we have no discretion left. The case is one where a new lease ought to be granted, because, we must apply the formula." On the whole, in matters of this kind, in legislation which is only intended to cover a short period, and regarding leases which themselves can never be more than of a year's duration, we think it better to leave the matter to the county court judge.
But certainly we would feel, if a formula were to be provided at all, that it would have to be one which in our view would exclude what is called the scarcity value. Whether it should exclude the special value is another matter, and


hon. Members on neither side of the Committee have devoted their attention to that point, which shows the difficulty of providing any formula at all. Scarcity value arises from the fact that there is a shortage of premises of that particular kind. When the landlord is on a seller's market he can claim a much higher rent than he might be able to do if the supply were nearer the demand.
7.30 p.m.
The special value is something quite different. It arises either out of the particular situation of the premises or the fact that those are the only premises available in the neighbourhood for the purpose for which the tenant wants to have them. I do not know, and hon. Members on neither side of the Committee have sought to say, what they would do about the special value.
It is true, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas), pointed out, that hon. Members opposite have departed from the position which they took up on Second Reading in regard to scarcity value. My recollection of the Second Reading debate on the matter was that hon. Members had said that they disclaimed any intention to include, in the formula which they wanted to introduce in the Bill for fixing the rent, any scarcity value due to the present shortage of accommodation. Of course, this Amendment of the Opposition is inconsistent with that disclaimer. Once we start putting in a formula of this kind based, as I think any formula must be based, on references to some kind of market value—we have tried, for instance, the 1939 market value plus 60 per cent.—all these difficulties arise. Are we to have regard to the scarcity value? Are we to have regard to the special value? Should we exclude—and I agree that we should—the freak value, and so on?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Attorney-General has sought to make rather a party point about the Opposition withdrawing from a certain attitude it had taken up. Does not he agree that in both these definitions there is a certain amount of scarcity value included? In fact, scarcity value is not a technical term. It has never been defined and it

must have relation not only to present shortages but to all sorts of other factors.

The Attorney-General: I do not seek to make a party point. My suggestion is that, hon. Members having disclaimed any intention to compel the county court judge to include a scarcity value in his assessment of the rent, have now found that it is extremely difficult to draft an Amendment embodying the point. Perhaps my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee have been rather more successful. I would have thought that the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) does not successfully exclude—indeed, it does not purport to exclude—scarcity value at all. We would certainly want to exclude it if we were putting any formula in this Bill.
I invite the Committee to say that the difficulty of drafting a precise formula which will enable the learned judge to have regard or not to scarcity value, special value and so on, is so great that it is much better to leave the whole matter to the judge sitting if you like as a cadi under the palm tree. What he will do when he gets these questions is what the judges in Scotland have done on the occasions when they have had to deal with the matter. The judge is told by the Act that he has to look at all the circumstances and fix what he thinks would be a reasonable rent having regard to all the circumstances.
I have no doubt that one of the points he would have regard to—one of them— would be the state of the market, and he would consider the terms of the existing tenancy, any variation that he was proposing to make in the terms, and the general state of the property. If it appeared to him in examining all the circumstances that the local market rents, to which presumably he would have regard and with the state of which he would be very familiar without having expert evidence called before him, appeared to be unreasonably high, he would probably think that a reasonable rent would be something below the present inflated market value—inflated because of the scarcity of similar premises.
If, on the other hand, the existing rent under the old tenancy, which might have been running for some considerable time, appeared to him to be unduly low having


regard to existing circumstances, that would be a reason for going above the existing rent and putting something more on it. One cannot really do better than look at the experience of the actual working of this system in Scotland. It is easy for us to talk about these matters from a purely theoretical point of view and to agree that it would be very much nicer in theory to have a rigid formula which a judge can apply in every case; but, looking at the matter not from the point of view of theoretical legislation but from its actual working in practice under an existing similar provision in Scotland, we invite the Committee to say that it would be wise in this short and temporary Measure to follow the precedent set by the Scottish Act which has worked so well.

Mr. Lionel Heald: I was glad to hear the Attorney-General say that he did not regard this as a party question. I hope that I may be able to pursuade the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. UngoedThomas) to regard it in the same way, though he has not done that so far. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East, that some criterion should be laid down. The question is which of these two methods should be adopted, or whether a combination of them should be adopted. There is no difference between them in effect, except that the hon. and learned Member has made no provision for scarcity value, whereas my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) has made a provision of a kind; that is to say, a provision for special cases.
I do not pretend to be an expert on this subject, but as I see it, it is impossible for anyone who is accustomed to construing the English language to find anything in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East, which provides in any way for the exclusion of any rental which may be relevant in comparable premises in the locality. Therefore, I ask him to reconsider the matter on the basis that he should not feel that he ought to apologise for being found working with us against the Government. After all, that is a good thing to do sometimes if it is not likely to produce any awkward results, and I do not imagine it would in this case. Why should he not forget for one moment the colour of his

tie and combine with us to get what we want, which is proper guidance for the county court judge? I ask him once more to reconsider the matter and to ask himself what there is in his Amendment which will prevent the county court judge from taking into account whatever scarcity value there may be.
I do not know what the words "scarcity value" mean. It is no use somebody telling me that in some Report somebody says that they mean something. That has absolutely no effect at all. Until Parliament has defined the phrase, it must be construed as two ordinary English words, and there is absolutely nothing in this Amendment which has anything to do with that at all. On the other hand, in the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral there is some evidence of that, because it states:
Provided that in estimating the rent which a willing lessee would agree to give for the premises the court may disregard any offer made to the lessor which appears to the court to be substantially in excess of the rent which might he expected for the premises.
That is, something which includes something for special scarcity or special position, and I appeal to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East, to pluck up courage and combine with us.

Mr. Leslie Hale: My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General raised two points. In answer to the first one, he said that he thought that to set up a whole series of conditions would merely be adding to the costs of the litigation, and I think that is true. I do not want to argue this point to the Committee at this stage, but I would merely say that, if we set up seven or eight conditions, the applicant or respondent will say to himself, "If I do not call any evidence on this issue, the county court judge can say that the other side have produced evidence, and therefore I shall not be successful." It is the same type of question as that concerning a medical witness in an arbitration. One has to cover every point at issue. There is, therefore, a valid argument for amending this Clause, which is one that I have supported, and I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas), will agree with me.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Under the Clause as it stands, the county court judge and both parties can have regard to all the circumstances and that opens up the possibility of an infinite amount of evidence being called.

Mr. Hale: I am coming to that. I said I would deal with it. Let me take a somewhat unusual analogy from the Court of Criminal Appeal. They have power to increase sentence on appeal against a sentence. There-is no yardstick by which it can be measured. No one can adequately advise an appellant. All one can say is that if the case comes before Lords Justices A, B and C, the sentence may be doubled and before D, E and F, it may be halved. It will be the same in the county court if there is no method of assessment.
When my right hon. and learned Friend claimed that this was a really satisfactory method of dealing with the situation, I would say that this is not really the case, because what happens is this. The man who has the most to lose generally gives in, and he may be a poor landlord against a rich tenant, or, more probably, a well-to-do landlord against a poor tenant. Whoever has most to lose and most to fear settles and comes to an agreement. It is a purely speculative proposal. That, I think, is most unsatisfactory, and if my right hon. and learned Friend suggests that there is too much litigation in Scotland about that, I think that is the probably reason for it.
7.45 p.m.
I would suggest that, between now and the Report stage, the Government should consider some such suggestion as this. Those of us who sat on the Committee and had to approach this matter, spending many afternoons upon it, fully realise that it is impossible for anyone to find a phrase of two or three words which could cover every eventuality and yet be completely water-tight. I do suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that he might very well consider, between now and the Report stage, some such provision as "in all the circumstances" it considers reasonable, but excluding any scarcity value or any special offers for rent and so on, on the lines of the hon. and learned Member for Wirrall's exception. I am not prepared to say at the moment that those words are precise and unambiguous, but there are two advantages for that way

of doing it. If we do it by way of exclusion, neither side will give evidence on the point and it may very well cheapen the proceedings. If we get exclusion from the scarcity value, it seems to me that we shall limit the extraordinarily wide area for disagreement or for different points of view. We should also be retaining in the Bill what the Interim Committee unanimously decided to put forward as a temporary measure, and I think we would have come in substance nearer to the spirit of both the Amendments moved from either side of the Committee.

Mr. Black: I think hon. Members on both sides have listened to the advice of the learned Attorney-General with very great disappointment, and I must confess that he left me entirely unconvinced as to the advantages which he has told us in his view and that of the Government would follow from having no precise definition as to the rent to be fixed by the county court.
The Attorney-General laid great stress upon the fact that it was the view of the Government that scarcity value should be excluded when the rent came to be fixed under this part of the Bill. I must point out that, if I understand the Bill correctly and if it is passed in its present form without any further definition of rent, it would be within the competence of a county court judge to take scarcity values into account in fixing the rent to be paid. Therefore, it would seem to me that what the learned Attorney-General suggested to us as being the main objective of the Government in this matter may very well be frustrated by lack of precision as to the rent which the county court has the power to fix.
I would mention some of the practical disadvantages, as they appear to me, in leaving the matter in such general, wide and vague terms, as they appear in the Bill at the moment, and I have particularly in mind the very general phrase "in all the circumstances." I should like to mention three circumstances which might well be regarded as coming within the ambit of that phrase. All are circumstances which I suggest ought not to be brought into consideration, and, indeed, if they were brought into consideration, would constitute a very great difficulty for a county court judge. Firstly, it seems to me that "in all the circumstances" would properly comprise a consideration of the circumstances of the


parties as well as circumstances pertaining to the premises themselves. Is it the desire of the Government that the circumstances of the parties should be brought into consideration?
Let us take the case of two adjoining premises which are exactly similar from the physical point of view and are let on two separate leases to two separate tenants, both leases expiring on the 25th March of this year. If, in the one case, we happen to have a rich landlord and a poor tenant, and, in the other case, a poor landlord and a rich tenant, is it suggested that, in the second case, the rent should be fixed by the county court at a higher level than in the first case, because of the circumstances of the parties? I would suggest that that is quite properly within the ambit of such an all-embracing phrase as "in all the circumstances." I suggest that it would be quite unreasonable in these two cases for the rent to be fixed at different levels for premises which, physically, are exactly similar one with the other.
Of course, if we are going to leave the Bill as at present drafted, it must obviously increase the scope of the circumstances at which the county court has to look, and thereby, surely, increase the amount of evidence that will be offered to the county court judge, and thus increase to the parties the expense involved in the proceedings.
The second point that occurs to me as coming within the ambit of the phrase "in all the circumstances" is that it is a recognised fact that traders in some lines of business are able to support a higher rent than traders occupying similar premises, but engaged in some different form of business activity. Is it suggested, for instance, that the trader in a parade of shops who is engaged in carrying on a business which is regarded as being capable of bearing a fairly high rent should be required by the county court judge to pay a higher rent than another trader in similar premises in the same parade who happens to be carrying on a different type of trade which, generally, cannot support such a high rent? There, again, if circumstances of that kind are to be brought within the ambit of consideration, we are going to produce a disparity in results and a lack of uniformity which, I suggest, will promote grave discontent between different parties securing different

results at the hands of the county court judge.
The third case I wish to instance is that of the successful and energetic trader, on the one hand, and the trader in similar premises in the same parade who, perhaps, neglects his business and is, therefore, able to support only a very low rent. Is it suggested, for instance, that under the head of "in all the circumstances" can be brought into consideration the trading results of the particular trader, because, surely, that is part of the circumstances of the case? If the county court judge is to be required to have regard to the trading results of the particular trader, that, again, is going to involve the consideration of his trading accounts perhaps over a period of years and is again going to add to the difficulties and the expense of the proceedings.
I suggest in all seriousness that the Bill: in its present form, in this vague and indefinite way, and without clarification as to the circumstances which the county court judge is to take into account and the basis on which he is to fix the rent, is bound to lead to a lack of uniformity, and thereby to great discontent on the part of the parties.
In coming to a conclusion, may I. approach the matter also from this standpoint? It must be agreed. I think, that it is in the interests of the community that the values of property should be capable of being ascertained as easily and as accurately as possible. Up to the moment, the debate on this Amendment has been carried on entirely by members, of the legal profession, but I should like to say a word about the difficulties inherent in this matter which will face surveyors and valuers and members of the profession which has to advise property owners in regard to property values.
If this Bill in its present form becomes an Act, it will be very difficult for a surveyor or a valuer to give anything like precise advice to a client. In the case of a business property where the lease expires at a comparatively early date, this Bill would introduce such uncertainty as to the future rent which the landlord could expect to receive as to make it very difficult for any surveyor or valuer to put a value on the property. It is most desirable that there should be some easily understood yardstick by which business premises can be valued. It is important.


for instance, in the case of a death that for purposes of probate the value of a property should be capable of being accurately ascertained. The same applies to a property the owner of which is desirous of obtaining a mortgage, or to an investor who is contemplating the purchase of a particular business property.
The Bill as at present drafted is most defective in its lack of precision concerning the rent which the county court judge is required to assess, and is bound to lead to uncertainty in the property market, a situation which cannot be of any advantage either to the landlord or to the tenant, or, indeed, to the community at large. I very much hope that on further consideration of all that has been said, the Government may be inclined to agree that some greater precision would be of very great advantage.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: rose—

The Chairman: I hope that the Committee will be good enough to come to a decision on this matter. In my view, the question has been gone into at great length by hon. Members on both sides. We are now proceeding at the rate of one Amendment an hour, and I hope that hon. Members will assist the Chair by expediting progress.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am sorry, Major Milner, that you should take that view on what is really one of the most important Amendments we have had to consider this afternoon. I was intending to rise on a point of order to ask your guidance. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) in the course of a few of his observations—only a few of them—touched upon the point raised by the next two Amendments on the Paper. I hope, Major Milner, that what he said will not prejudice a short discussion upon those Amendments.
What I am asking your guidance on. Major Milner, is this. If it is your wish that we should discuss those Amendments with this one, then I should be most grateful if you would say so, because I should like to say a word or two, not only on this Amendment which has now been selected, but upon the point covered by the next two Amendments, a point which, if I may say so with great respect, is not absolutely apparent from reading the Amendment. One of the difficulties

with this Clause is that one finds the phrase "in all the circumstances" appearing more than once.

The Chairman: As the hon. and learned Member knows. I have not indicated that the next Amendment should be discussed with the three we are at present discussing. I think I ought to say to the Committee that I think that the next Amendment has been already very largely discussed. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) based most of his speech on the phrase "in all the circumstances," and, therefore, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not wish to introduce a discussion on that matter. I do not really think that Amendment should be discussed with those at present under discussion.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I draw your attention, Major Milner, to the words in line 3, page 9, which state that the court may
if in all the circumstances of the case it appears reasonable so to do, order that there shall be granted to the tenant a tenancy.
That is the first time we get the phrase "in all the circumstances of the case." That is where it has been considered in relation to the granting of a new tenancy, and, with great respect, that is quite different from the effect of that phrase where it appears in line 6, because the court having been satisfied that it is reasonable to order a new tenancy—

The Chairman: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me saying so, I fully appreciate the difference. The second "in all the circumstances" refers to the conditions upon which the first part of the Clause is agreed, namely, that it appears reasonable so to do. It then says on what terms and conditions the tenancy shall be given. I fully understand that. I think the best course would be to dispose of the Amendment now under discussion, and then if I call the next Amendment standing on the Order Paper I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman will wish to say a word or two on that.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Yes, very shortly.

The Chairman: That being so, let us have a word or two on that Amendment rather than a word or two on the point of order.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: That is quite clear, and that course will save time. In view of what you have said, I do not think any of us would desire to continue the discussion on this Amendment. I must say, though, that I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will carefully consider what has been said on both sides

of the Committee about these Amendments, which are almost identical in substance, and certainly in intention.

Question put, "That 'such' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 185; Noes, 154,

Division No. 25.]
AYES
[8.2 p.m.


Adams, Richard
Grey, C. F.
Padley, W. L.


Ayles, W. H.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Paget, R. T.


Bacon, Miss A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)


Balfour, A.
Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)
Pannell, T. C.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A J
Grimond, J.
Parker, J.


Bartley, P
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Pearson, A.


Benn, Hon. A. N. Wedgwood
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Popplewell, E.


Benson, G.
Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)
Porter, G.


Beswick. F.
Hall, Rt. Hn. W. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hannan, W.
Proctor, W. T.


Blenkinsop, A
Hardy, E. A.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Blyton, W. R.
Hargreaves, A.
Reid, W. (Camlachie)


Boardman, H.
Harrison, J.
Rhodes, H.


Bottomley, A. G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Robens, A.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hayman, F. H.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Herbison, Miss M.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hobson, C. R.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Holman, P.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Houghton, Douglas
Royle, C.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hoy, J.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Burke, W. A.
Hughes, Moelwyn (Islington, N.)
Simmons, C. J.


Burton, Miss E
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Slater, J.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney. S.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Champion, A. J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Sorensen, R. W.


Clunie, J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F


Cocks, F. S.
Janner, B.
Sparks, J. A.


Coldrick, W.
Jay, D. P. T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Collick, P.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Stross, Dr. B


Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough A.)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Cooper, J. (Deptford)
Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K (Peckham)
Keenan, W.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Cove, W. G.
King, H. M.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, F. (Newton)
Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W.)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Lindgren, G. S.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
MacColl, J. E.
Thurtle, Ernest


Daines, P.
McInnes, J.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Darling, G. (Hillsboro')
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Tomney, F.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
McLeavy, F.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Ungoed-Thomas, A. L.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield. E.)
Wade, D. W.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Manuel, A. C.
Wallace, H. W


Deer, G
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Weitzman, D.


Delargy, H. J.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Donnelly, D.
Mellish, R. J.
West, D. G.


Driberg, T. E. N
Messer, F.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E)


Dye, S.
Middleton, Mrs. L
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Ede, Rt. Hon. J C.
Mikardo, Ian
Wilkins, W. A.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Mitchison, G. R.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Edwards, W. J (Stepney)
Moeran, E. W.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Ewart, R.
Monslow, W.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Fernyhough, E
Moody, A. S.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Finch, H. J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Morris, R. Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Follick, M
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Huyton)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Moyle, A
Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)


George, Lady M Lloyd
Mulley, F. W
Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)


Gibson, C. W.
Heal, H.
Wise, Major F. J.


Gilzean, A.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon A.


Granville, E. (Eye)
Oldfield W. H.



Greenwood, A. W. J. (Rossendale)
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grenfell, D. R.
Orbach, M.
Mr. Colindridge and Mr. Bowden.




NOES


Alport, C. J. M.
Assheton, Rt. Hon R. (Blackburn, W.)
Banks, Col. C.


Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Baker, P.
Beamish, Maj T. V. H.


Arbuthnot, John
Baldock J. M
Bell, R. M.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Baldwin, A. E.
Bennett, Sir P (Edgbaston)




Birch, Nigel
Hay, John
Powell, J. Enoch


Bishop, F. P.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Prescott, Stanley


Black, C. W.
Heald, L. F.
Profumo, J. D


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Heath, E. R.
Raikes, H. V.


Boothby, R.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Redmayne, M.


Bossom. A. C.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Renton, D. L. M.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)
Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool. S.)


Braine, B.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Rodgers, J. (Sevenoaks)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.
Roper, Sir H.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.
Ropner, Col. L.


Brooke, H. (Hampstead)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Ross, Sir R. D (Londonderry)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hurd, A. R.
Russell, R. S.


Burden, Squadron-Leader F. A
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D


Butler, Rt. Hon. Ft. A. (S'ffr'n W' d' n)
Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Scott, Donald


Carson, Hon. E.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Shepherd, W. S. (Cheadle)


Channon, H.
Johnson, Howard S. (Kemptown)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grinstead)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.)
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Stanley, Capt. Hon R. (N. Fylde)


Colegate, A.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Stevens, G. P.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Storey, S.


Cranborne, Viscount
Linstead, H. N.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Studholme, H. G.


Crouch, R F.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Teeling, William


Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R
Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)


de Chair, S.
McKibbin, A.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Deedes, W. F.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Tilney, John


Digby, S. Wingfield
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Touche, G. C.


Drewe, C.
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Turner, H. F. L


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Turton, R. H.


Duncan, Capt J. A. L
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Duthie, W. S.
Mannhngham-Buller, R. E.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marples, A. E.
Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)


Fisher, Nigel
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wakefield, Sir W. W. (St. Marylebone)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Maude, J. C (Exeter)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Fort, R.
Medlicott, Brigadier F
Ward, Hon G. R (Worcester)


Foster, J. G.
Mellor, Sir J.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)
Molson, A. H. E.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon C


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Morrison, Rt. Hon W. S. (Cirencester)
Walkinson, H.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Nabarro, G.
White, J. Baker (Canterbury)


Gage, C. H.
Nutting, Anthony
Wills, G.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Oakshott, H. D.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Wood, Hon. R.


Harvey, Air Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.



Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Pickthorn, K.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Major Wheatley and Mr. Vosper.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move in page 9, line 6, to leave out "in all the circumstances."

The Deputy-Chairman: This and the next Amendment in page 9, line 6, after "reasonable," insert
having regard to the nature of the premises the subject of the tenancy.
may be discussed together.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: They go together and, Sir Charles, as your predecessor suggested just now, they can both be discussed shortly.
The point is quite simple and it is again to give an indication to the court and assist it in its task on a somewhat narrower point than the matter which we have just been discussing. As the Clause now stands, the new tenancy will be
on such terms and conditions as the court in all the circumstances thinks reasonable.
I should like to ask the Solicitor-General whether he means that the court shall

have regard to the circumstances of the particular tenant—that is to say whether, if in one case he is a bachelor and in another case he is a married man with a lot of children, those are factors to be taken into consideration. If so I do not think that would be right.
That is why we have tabled these Amendments— I am not wedded to the wording—and I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not spend time in criticising the drafting—to leave out "in all the circumstances," and after "reasonable" to insert:
having regard to the nature of the premises the subject of the tenancy.
I am not saying that the latter Amendment is worded correctly, but if in assessing what is a fair rent for premises it is not intended to have regard to the personal conditions of the tenant, including his means, that ought to be made clear.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will say two things—first, that it is


not the intention of the Clause that regard should be had to the personal position of each individual tenant, and secondly, that he will consider trying to find a form of words between now and Report to make that clear in this Clause, we can proceed to the next Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the financial circumstances of the landlord and the tenant would be irrelevant to the consideration whether a new tenancy should be granted. Inasmuch as I think that under the wording which at present exists in the Clause it would be open to the learned judge to take those circumstances into account, I think we ought to endeavour to put some form of wording in which would make it apparent that the financial circumstances of one party or the other are matters which ought not to be taken into account.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am sure he will agree now that it is rather a different point from that which we have been discussing. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I beg to move in page 9, line 17, to leave out "one year," and insert "two years."
The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the period for which the tenancy may be ordered under the Bill shall be two years instead of one year. The real object of the Amendment is to avoid having two applications, which is almost inevitably what happens, and thus save costs. The purpose of this Bill is to provide a standstill for a two-year period, and it therefore seems ridiculous, on the face of it, that for a short period like this, two applications should be required in order to span the period. If there is an extension it is better to ensure that the extension granted on one application and one application only shall span the whole period.
I appreciate that in the Scottish Act the provision was for a one-year tenancy which would mean that an applicant would have to make a second application in order to span the period of two years contemplated in the Scottish Act.
There is a vital difference between Scottish business tenancies and English business tenancies. In the case of Scotland the common tenancy is a one-year tenancy. Therefore, in the case of Scotland the extension of one year would merely be the common form provision for a Scottish tenancy. Here the common form provision for business premises is 7, 14 and 21 years and, comparatively uncommon, a year-to-year period.
Having regard to this distinction between Scotland and ourselves, having in mind the purpose of this Bill and, above all, remembering what was rightly emphasised by the Opposition in our previous debate—the need for saving costs—I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will see his way to accept this Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: Here again we thought we had a safe guide in the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act. No doubt, there are differences between the Scottish and English practice, but they are not so marked as to make it desirable to depart from the practice which has already been tried and found to work satisfactorily. We think, on the whole, it is better that there should be this system which is at present working, and, although I see the force of the argument which has been adduced by my hon. and learned Friend, we prefer to leave it as it is. If a tenancy has been renewed for one year and an application is made to renew it further, it is unlikely that very much expense would be incurred in the further application.
There is a further technical point which one should bear in mind. The Bill as drafted does not require that a period of renewal granted during the lifetime of the Bill shall come to an end at the date when the Bill itself comes to an end. A new tenancy might be granted for nine months at a date only three months before the Bill comes to an end. To change it in the sense proposed would mean in that respect that the Bill would have to be somewhat radically re-cast, and it would mean that the advantage given to the tenant in certain cases might have to be considerably curtailed. In all the circumstances we feel that the advice we ought to give is to leave the Bill as it is.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee unduly.


I appreciate the technical point that my right hon. and learned Friend has made. I concede at once that it would be conceivable with my Amendment to have an extension going appreciably over the lifetime of the Bill, but I drafted the Amendment in this form because I hoped it would be possible, on permanent legislation coming into operation, to deal with any difficulty of that kind without going into any complicated amendment of this Bill. I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend appreciates the object I have in mind; it is to save costs on duplicating applications, and I am sure everybody will agree with that object.
I do not wish to press this matter except to this extent, that I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will consider the matter with a view to seeing whether it is possible to attain the object of saving costs without any great alteration of substance such as he has suggested might arise from the technical difficulty which he foresees. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy-Chairman: The next two Amendments—that in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), and that in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas), fall, and I will call the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. fanner). As the hon. Member is not in his place, and as no one wishes to move that Amendment, I shall call the next Amendment, in line 31.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 9, line 31, after "possession," to insert:
in the interest of good estate management or.
In drafting this Clause the Government have made provision for circumstances in which it is desirable that the lease of a shop should not be renewed because it is necessary that the existing premises should be demolished or reconstructed. There are, of course, other circumstances—circumstances which can hardly be described as coming within the term "reconstructed"—in which the owner of an estate might seek to carry out an alteration to the premises which would

be regarded as good estate management and would be in the interest of the community as a whole.
I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept this Amendment, because it seems to me to be entirely in line with the spirit of the paragraph in which we seek to make it. There may be cases where a landlord has let a number of adjoining premises to different individuals or companies and where he has planned that the leases will fall at the same time so that he will be able to carry out a demolition and/or a reconstruction.
Owing to the changes which have taken place in recent years, there are many cases where an estate owning a considerable number of houses is now anxious to convert those houses from the purpose for which they were originally intended when they were built so as to serve the purpose and conditions of the present time. On a previous occasion I mentioned a large-scale conversion of houses in Eaton Square from large mansions, which few people can now afford to own and to occupy, into flats. In many cases the provision of these flats necessitated two or even three houses being knocked into one. The unit of habitation is no longer vertical but is horizontal.
In a large number of towns there are very many properties of this sort, and it is desirable that adjoining properties should be brought back into the possession of the landlord for the purpose of carrying out internal changes of that kind. It is with that kind of case in mind that I have moved to insert the words:
in the interest of good estate management.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will bear in mind that all this is subject to the discretion of a county court judge and that the Amendment only provides that he shall not give exclusive consideration to the claims of the tenant in a case where the landlord has a perfectly good reason for desiring to resume possession of his property—the case where it is necessary for that to happen in the interest of good estate management. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will regard the Amendment as being in harmony with the general spirit of this paragraph and will be prepared to accept it.

The Solicitor-General: I think we ought not to accept the Amendment, for the following reason. The effect of it virtually is to take the decision as to whether a tenancy should be granted very largely out of the hands of the court and to make it a decision which has to be made according to the desires of the landlord.
What is the position as the Bill stands at present? As the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) pointed out, the learned judge will not grant a new tenancy unless he thinks it reasonable in Al the circumstances and no doubt, in deciding whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant a new tenancy, he would take into account the question of good estate management. It is not as though that aspect of the matter will be left out of account altogether; certainly it will not be left out of account. It will be given its due place among other considerations when the judge asks himself whether it is reasonable to grant a tenancy.
If the Amendment were accepted the position would be altogether different. It would mean that the court would be bound not to order a new tenancy if the landlord reasonably required possession for the purpose of good estate management. Undoubtedly good estate management would include the consideration of getting the best possible rent. A landlord desirous of using premises in the best interests of good estate management would say to himself, "What is the best rent I can get out of them?" Equally, he might wish to use the premises, for the purpose of good estate management, in a manner which was according to his own particular conception of how he should run the estate, even though that manner was contrary to the interests of the neighbourhood at large and of the other occupiers.
In other words, the effect of the Amendment would be that the court would be precluded from granting a new tenancy, for example, where, if a new tenancy were granted, the landlord would be prevented from obtaining a higher rent from some other tenant. Good estate management would mean that he should obtain the highest rent—

Mr. Molson: No.

The Solicitor-General: It would mean that he should get a higher rent, passing from the much lesser rent, and the county

court judge might think it reasonable to fix a new rent to be paid by the continuing tenant.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Molson: I had thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have dealt with the case I gave about converting a house into flats, which would come under the word "reconstruction." He is now advancing the suggestion that the court should not grant a new tenancy if the landlord desires to reconstruct the premises in order to obtain a higher rent. That is not the way I have read this paragraph, and if that is the way the Solicitor-General reads it, it seems to me there is something wrong about it.

The Solicitor-General: What I was saying was if the words which the hon. Gentleman seeks to insert in paragraph (c) are inserted, the result in a particular case might be as follows. An existing tenant is paying a certain rent and the county court judge says to himself, "If I renew this tenancy, I would say that the same rent should be payable by the existing tenant and he should have a new tenancy." Then it might appear that the landlord was letting it to some other tenant and getting twice the rent or three times the rent, and it would be naturally stated that it was in the interests of good estate management for the landlord to accept the higher instead of the lower rent. It might not always be so but it would be in a good many cases, because the effect of incorporating the words:
in the interest of good estate management
in the paragraph would be that the court would be unable to grant a new tenancy in a case of that sort.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I quote a case which might be more likely to come within the definition of "good estate management" than the one the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given'? I never before heard it suggested that that means to get the highest rent possible.

The Solicitor-General: I have not said that was always the case.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Or at all. There may be a case where a tenant in a shop is causing a great deal of annoyance and upsetting the neighbouring tenants. In the interests of good estate


management and for the amenities for all the neighbours, it might be desirable that that particular tenant should not have his lease renewed. We are merely saying that the interest of good estate management is something to which the court should have regard.

The Solicitor-General: That is what the Bill already provides. The case in which the interest of good estate management requires that a particular tenant who is a nuisance to the adjoining neighbours shall not have his lease renewed, comes within the purview of the Clause. The county court judge has power to take into consideration all the facts, because almost the initial words of the Clause are, that he can grant a new tenancy
if in all the circumstances of the case it appears reasonable so to do.
If the circumstances were that a tenant was asking for a new lease but was a nuisance to everybody else, so that his continuing occupation of the premises was inconsistent with good estate management, that is no doubt a matter which the county court judge would think it relevant to consider in determining whether, in all the circumstances of the case, it was reasonable.
If into this paragraph we actually put the words "good estate management," it would require that a higher as distinct from a lower rent should be asked for. Then the learned county court judge would be unable to grant a renewal of tenancy in that case. I am not saying that the question of getting a higher or lower rent is the only thing to be taken into account in good estate management, but it is not an irrelevant circumstance. It is an improvident landlord who, having an opportunity of getting a higher rent from a good tenant, says to himself. "No, I will reject that and select the lower rent." That is a matter which, in the consideration of good estate management, must be taken into account. A landlord in those conditions would not disregard that not altogether irrelevant consideration.
If those words were inserted in paragraph (c), as a result of the opening words of subsection (3), namely,
The court shall not order the grant of a new tenancy …

the landlord would say, "I think it is in the interests of good estate management that I should not take this tenant but should take another who can afford to pay me a higher rent." The learned county court judge in that case would be completely powerless. He would have to refuse an order for a new tenancy, whereas under the Clause as it at present stands he would take that into account as well as all the other circumstances. He would fit all the circumstances of the case together and give due weight to each one of them. He might think that that would be a relevant consideration which should guide his judgment, but it would be only one of several. As the matter stands at the moment, it is for the county court judge to weigh up all the other considerations against that one and decide accordingly.
In regard to the case where it was desirable in the interests of good estate management to convert premises into flats, the county court judge would have to take that into account and he would no doubt weigh that consideration with the others. That is what I meant when I said that the effect of the Amendment would be to take out of the learned judge's hands the decision whether a new tenancy should be granted on the question of good estate management and put the decision on to the landlord. For those reasons, I hope the Committee will not accept this Amendment.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I had hoped for an opportunity to make one or two brief observations before the Solicitor-General spoke, because there are one or two points on which I wanted his enlightenment and explanation. Now, having had the advantage of hearing the case as put by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I am bound to say I am not convinced by the reasons he has adduced in asking us to reject the Amendment. The Solicitor-General says that it would be wrong to specify in subsection. (3) the interest of good estate management because the words might be interpreted as meaning simply that a higher rent should follow. I do not think that is how good estate management is likely to be interpreted by the court.

The Solicitor-General: I simply mentioned one element that enters into good estate management. If the landlord said


to the county court judge, "I have a good opportunity for disposing of the property, and good estate management requires that I should do so," the county court judge would be prevented from ordering a new tenancy.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The Solicitor-General says that it was wrong to put the words in because they would act as a powerful deterrent to the court. The second reason was that it was unnecessary to put these words in because it would still be open to the county court judge to have regard to the various points in the subsection. The Committee will not expect me to attempt to reproduce the facility of language with which the Solicitor-General expressed this point.
As regards the first of these submissions of the Solicitor-General, I would point out that the question of good estate management was considered by the Court of Appeal in the case of Clifton v. Taylor not long ago. I have not had time to refresh my mind very fully either with the facts or the ipsissima verba of the judgment, but the question of good estate management in that case was turned upon a man making certain premises into one house, and not upon merely trying to get a higher rent at one particular moment. I think that position is sound. So far as this second proposition goes, the county court judge might say, "If the Legislature had intended me to take account of the interest of good estate management they would have expressed it among the items in this subsection." That might lead the court to think that it was a matter which the legislature intended them to have regard to.
Where did these words "the interest of good estate management" come from? They may have come from the Scottish Act, which I have not studied. They differ in certain respects from the language of the 1927 Act. I wonder whether the Solicitor-General will give the Committee a brief explanation why that is so. In the 1927 Act there is an onus on the landlord to prove that:
… he intends to pull down or remodel the premises; or … that vacant possession of the premises is required in order to carry out a scheme of re-development.
It also refers to "good estate management." The right hon. and learned Gentleman has addressed himself to "good estate management." Why was "scheme

of re-development," which is a wide phrase, dropped in this Bill in favour of the narrower phrase:
… a substantial part of those premises may he demolished or reconstructed."?
The interpretation Clause does not help with any of these words in the Bill. I see difficulties arising out of the interpretation of the word "demolish" in certain cases. The language of the subsection, in suggesting that it must be shown that the premises should be reconstructed, is, of course, unfortunate because it is not the premises that are reconstructed, I should have thought, in a scheme of re-development. I ask, in a constructive vein, I hope, the right hon. and learned Gentleman to have a further look at the language to see if it really is an improvement on the language used in Section 5 (3) of the 1927 Act.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave most extraordinary meanings to the expression "good estate management" and interpretations which I do not think would be accepted in any court in the country as the ordinary meaning of that phrase. After all, it is a phrase which has appeared in another statute, the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, and, so far as I am aware, even the most ardent critics of that Act, like the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), have never criticised the inclusion of that phrase. It has a well-recognised meaning, and for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to come forward and say that it has the meaning of only applying to an increase of rent and that good estate management really consists of selling parts of the estate was not treating the Amendment with the seriousness which it deserved.

The Solicitor-General: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish to misreport me. What I said was that the question of getting the best rent in the circumstances or the question of making use of a favourable opportunity of disposing of the property was an element that a landlord would or might take into account in deciding what course was best in the interests of good estate management. I did not seek to put it as an exclusive test at all. I said that these were the kind of considerations, among others, which might actuate a landlord in


asking himself how he could best use a portion of his property in the interests of good estate management.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: It is very difficult indeed, I know, to put it shortly and yet make any impact on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's mind. As one of my hon. Friends said, it is not the landlord who decides this matter if the Amendment is accepted, but the court. The court has to be satisfied that the landlord reasonably requires possession in the interests of good estate management, and "good estate management" may sometimes mean selling part of an estate or rounding off a corner. I recognise that it is not the normal meaning of "good estate management" in any shape or form. Bearing in mind that this alteration will only mean that the court would act upon it if it was satisfied that it was reasonable to give possession in the

interests of good estate management, there really are not the risks flowing from it which the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested.

I fear that, in view of his attitude, in view particularly of the fact that this is an expression which has been in the 1927 Act and has been well interpreted without any criticism, and in view of our attempt to make this a better Measure, we shall have to press this to a Division unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman can say that he will be prepared on reconsideration to insert somewhere in the Clause the criterion which is not there at present, that is, a reference to "good estate management."

Question put. "That those words be there inserted."

The Commitee divided: Ayes, 153; Noes. 184.

Division No. 26.]
AYES
[8.45 p.m.


Alport, C. J. M.
Foster, J. G.
Molson, A. H. E.


Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Arbuthnot, John
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Nutting, Anthony


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Gage, C. H.
Oakshott, H. D.


Assheton, Rt. Hon R. (Blackburn, W.)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Baker, P.
Gamer-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Baldock, J. M.
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Baldwin, A. E
Harvey, Air-Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Pickthorn, K.


Banks, Col. C.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Powell, J. Enoch


Beamish, Maj T V H
Hay, John
Prescott, Stanley


Bell, R. M.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt Hon Sir C
Profumo, J. D


Bennett, Sir P (Edgbaston)
Heald, L F.
Raikes, H. V


Birch, Nigel




Bishop F. P
Heath, E. R.
Redmayne, M


Black. C. W.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W
Remnant, Hon. P.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Renton, D. L. M.


Boothby, R.
Hill, Mrs. E (Wythenshawe)
Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Bossom. A. C.
Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Roper, Sir H.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.
Ropner, Col. L.


Braine, B.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J G.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Russell, R. S.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt -Col W
Hurd, A R.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D


Brooke, H. (Hampstead)
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Scott, Donald


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Shepherd, W. S. (Cheadle)


Burden, Squadron-Leader F. A.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Johnson, Howard S. (Kemptown)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Carson, Hon. E
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Channon, H.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N. Fylde)


Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grinstead)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Stevens, G. P.


Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W)


Colegate, A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Storey, S.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Linstead, H. N.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Studholme, H. G.


Cranborne, Viscount
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M S
Teeling, William


Crouch, R. F.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)


Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.)
McKibbin, A.
Thorneycroft, G E P (Monmouth)


Davies, Nigel (Epping)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Tilney, John


de Chair, S.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Touche, G. C.


Deedes, W. F.
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Turner, H. F. L.


Drewe, C.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Turton, R. H.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Duthie W. S.
Marples, A. E.
Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wakefield, Sir W. W. (St. Marylebone)


Fisher, Nigel
Maude, J. C. (Exeter)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Medlicott, Brigadier F
Ward, Hon G. R. (Worcester)


Fert. R.
Mellor, Sir J.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)




Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon C.
Wills, G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Watkinson, H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Mr. Digby and Mr. Vosper.


Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl



White, J. Baker (Canterbury)
Wood. Hon. R.





NOES


Adams, Richard
Greenwood, Anthony W. J. (Rossendale)
Oldfield, W. H.


Ayles, W. H.
Grenfell, D. R.
Oliver, G. H.


Bacon, Miss A.
Grey, C. F.
Orbach, M.


Balfour, A.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Padley, W. E.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A, J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Paget, R. T


Bartley, P.
Griffiths, W, D. (Exchange)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)


Benn, Hon. A. N. Wedgwood
Grimond, J.
Parker, J.


Benson, G
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Popplewell, E


Beswick, F.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Porter, G.


Blenkinsop, A
Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)
Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Blyton, W. R.
Hall, Rt. Hn. W. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Proctor, W. T.


Boardman, H.
Hannan, W.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Bottomley, A. G
Hardy, E. A.
Reid, W. (Camlachie)


Bowden, H. W.
Hargreaves, A
Rhodes, H.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Harrison, J.
Robens, A.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hayman, F. H.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Harbison, Miss M
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Hobson, C. R.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Holman, P
Royle, C.


Brown, George (Belper)
Houghton, Douglas
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hoy, J.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H


Burke, W. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Burton, Miss E.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N)
Simmons, C. J


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Slater, J,


Champion, A. J
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Clunie, J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Sorensen, R. W.


Cocks, F. S
Isaacs, Rt Hon G. A
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F


Coldrick, W
Janner, B.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Collick, P.
Jay, D. P. T.
Stross, Dr. B.


Collindridge, F.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough W.)
Jones, D, T. (Hartlepool)
Taylor, R. J, (Morpeth)


Cooper, J. (Deptford)
Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Corbet, Mrs F. K. (Peckham)
Keenan, W.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Cove, W. G.
King, H, M.
Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, F. (Newton)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Crosland, C. A. R
Lindgren, G. S
Thurtle, Ernest


Cullen, Mrs A.
MacColl, J. E
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G


Daines, P.
McInnes, J.
Tomney, F.


Darling, G (Hillsboro')
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Turner-Samuels, M


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
McLeavy, F.
Ungoed-Thomas, A


Davies, Harold (Leek)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wade, D. W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Malialieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wallace, H. W


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Manuel, A. C
Weitzman, D.


Deer, G.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wells. P L. (Faversham)


Delargy, H. J
Mathers, Rt Hon. George
West, D. G.


Donnelly, D.
Mellish, R. J.
Wheatley, Rt- Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)

Driberg, T. E. N.
Messer, F.
Whiteley, Rt Hon. W


Dye, S.
Middleton, Mrs L
Wilkins, W. A


Ede, Rt. Hon. J C.
Mikardo, Ian
Willey, F. T (Sunderland)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Mitchison, G. R
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Edwards, W. J (Stepney)
Moeran, E. W
Williams, Rev, Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Ewart, R.
Monslow, W.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Fernyhough, E.
Moody, A. S
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Finch, H. J.
Morgan, Or. H. B.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Morris, R. Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Wilson, Rt. Hon J. H. (Huyton)


Follick, M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mort, D. L
Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)


George, Lady M. Lloyd
Moyle, A
Wise, Major F. J.


Gibson, C. W.
Molley, F W
Woodburn, Rt. Hon A


Gilzean, A.
Neal, H.



Granville, E. (Eye)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Sparks.

The Deputy-Chairman: The next two Amendments go together and can, I think, be discussed at the same time.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 9, line 34, to leave out the first "or."
In order that the purpose of this may be fully understood, I shall deal also with the following Amendment in line 34. after

"reconstructed," insert "or remodelled," which explains why it is desirable to leave out the word "or."
Since I was unsuccessful on the last occasion in persuading the Solicitor-General to accept the criterion of the interests of good estate management, perhaps I may try again with the word "remodelled" after "reconstructed." I


ventured to put to him the case of a substantial estate where different parts of the property had been let on different leases and where, perhaps, there may be two adjoining shops and one has come back into the possession of the landlord. In the case of the adjoining shop the tenant seeks under this Measure to obtain a renewal of his lease. I suggest that in a case of that kind it would be difficult to draw a distinction between the remodelling of premises and the reconstruction of the premises. A great deal of what the Solicitor-General said against the Amendment I last moved would naturally apply in the case of property being demolished, or reconstructed.
He made a great deal, as one would expect of a Member of the Government Benches today, of the undesirability of too much attention being paid to an enhanced or increased rent. But, of course, in a case where the demolition of the property, or reconstruction of the property, was the motive which actuated the landlord, the county court judge, if he is satisfied that it is a reasonable claim, is required under this Bill not to grant a renewal.
I suggest it is quite impossible to draw any logical line of dfferentiation between the reconstruction of the premises and the remodelling of the premises, but it appears to me that the word "remodelling" might include cases where it was obviously desirable in everybody's interest that the landlord should regain the possession of the property in order to carry out the remodelling. I therefore hope the Government will regard this Amendment as being in general line with the other words of this paragraph, and that they will be willing to accept the Amendment.

The Attorney-General: The effect of the Amendment would be to add remodelling to demolition and reconstruction as grounds on which the landlord may re-acquire possession of the premises. The first question I ask myself about that is, what on earth does remodelling mean? I have not the faintest idea, and that is the answer I must give. It is not a term of art. One has heard the expression in other contexts. I believe that in these hard times one talks of remodelling a lady's hat, but before one decides to remodel a lady's hat suitably,

one has to see what the lady is like. It is exactly the same in the case of remodelling premises. This really begs the whole question.
One has to see who the tenant is to be before one knows in what way one is likely to remodel the premises. Until the landlord has decided who he wants to re-occupy the premises, he cannot decide what form of remodelling he needs, even if one could attempt any definition of what is meant by the phrase, and I should have thought that in a Bill like this one would want a definition of it.
9.0 p.m.
I should think that the Clause as it stands gives very ample relief to the landlord. Certainly many hon. Members on this side of the House think it gives the landlord far too much opportunity of getting the premises back. It has been thought that the powers which we have given to the landlord—I have no doubt it would be thought so all the more if we were to enlarge them in the way proposed—are really quite an inroad on the general principle of the Bill, which is to enable the tenant to secure a short continuation of the lease.
To add remodelling to the grounds on which the landlord is entitled to eject the tenant would really be doing something to enable the landlord to get possession of individual premises which he did not want to reconstruct or develop in connection with some general scheme of estate management but with which he wanted to deal as individual premises—something which could probably quite well wait for a year or two, or which, if it was so urgent, could be taken into account by the court in deciding whether in all the circumstances the grant of a new lease was reasonable.
I can quite see that where there is demolition or reconstruction involved that may be part of a general scheme and there may be a case for it. We thought we were going a long way in including that provision but, where all that it is desired to do is to put a new chimney on one side of a house or to alter a dormer window to a gable window—

Mr. Molson: Mr. Molson indicated dissent.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member shakes his head but if that is not remodelling I do not know what it is.

Mr. Molson: I am at a great disadvantage in having lost an Amendment which was replied to by the Solicitor-General and in apparently being about to lose another to which the Attorney-General is replying, when their arguments are not necessarily consistent. The case I tried to put to the Solicitor-General, and to which I had no satisfactory answer, was where there were two adjoining properties and in the interests of good estate management it was desirable that they should be knocked into one. I sought to cover that in my first Amendment. I rather gather from what the Attorney-General is saying that he thinks that in a case of that kind the landlord would, under the Bill, be able to recover possession of the second shop in order to knock the two together. That is a matter of considerable importance and is what we are trying to deal with.

The Attorney-General: I should have thought that that was certainly more reconstruction than remodelling. As I said when I began my observations about this Amendment, I really do not know, and I venture to think that the hon. Member does not in the least know, what remodelling means. I should have ventured to suggest that it relates to a single shop as an entity and does not involve a scheme of reconstruction such as would be involved in knocking two or three shops into one.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Does the Attorney-General know what reconstruction means, and would the reconstruction of part of the premises make the provision apply?

Mr. Messer: Construction is making; reconstruction is remaking.

The Attorney-General: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend; that is a very good definition. It is a question of degree for the learned judge in all these cases. I venture to think that the learned judge would be entirely unfamiliar with the word "remodelling" I have never come across it before.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I put one question on that point? When the Attorney-General says that he has not come across the word before, may I say that I think he will find it in the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, and that when there is a departure in a provision

of this sort from a form of words which is used in a previous statute, the draftsman usually has a reason for doing that. If the Attorney-General looks at the relevant Section of the 1927 Act, he will find the word "remodel."

Mr. Walker-Smith: It is Section 5 (3, b, ii) of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927.

The Attorney-General: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Section 5 (3, b) says:
if the landlord proves—… (ii) that he intends to pull down or remodel the premises.
Well, there it is. I must confess that I am still as much in the dark as I was before as to what it means. I really have not the faintest idea, and hon. Gentlemen opposite who were responsible for this piece of legislation which has disappointed us all in practice seem to be unable to suggest what remodelling is and the definition seems to me to leave much to be desired.
I should have thought it must be the fact, as I suggested, that remodelling would be the changing of a gable window into a dormer window, or the putting of the front door at the back, or the back door at the front or matters of that kind. Apparently, from this Section, remodelling may mean something practically involving pulling down, or it may be simply the putting on of a different kind of chimney. Those are matters which we think cannot be so urgent that they have to be done within one, or at the most, two years. They are not matters which really arise as part of good estate management. If they are indeed matters of great urgency in a particular case then the county court judge will take them into account in deciding whether in the circumstances it is reasonable to grant a new lease.
I find as a matter of fact that paragraph 162 of the Final Report of the Leasehold Committee criticises, as I venture to criticise, this most unfortunate piece of legislative drafting for which lion. Members opposite were responsible in 1927. The Leasehold Committee say that it was too wide, pointing out that it covered work which could be done without disturbing the tenant at all. I should have thought that was very sound reasoning, and I hope that the hon. Member for The High Peak will not press this Amendment.

Mr. Molson: May I ask the Attorney-General if he usually learns his brief as he goes along in this way?

Sir William Darling: I would not suggest that I could usefully intervene in this Debate, but the innocence or ignorance of the Attorney-General emboldens me to direct his attention to a physical example of remodelling which is not reconstruction. I direct his attention to Regent Street, where there is a Crown Land lease. It is for the purpose of my argument, and with no desire to give it advertisement, that I mention the name of Messrs. Liberty and Company, an old-established firm of textile merchants who have a classic building in Regent Street. In the adjoining street, Great Marlborough Street, they have a building of an entirely different character—

Mr. Pickthorn: Disgusting!

Sir W. Darling: My hon. Friend says it is disgusting, but it is an old English pattern. I suggest to the Attorney-General, who is unaware of any example of remodelling in a reconstructed building, that those buildings were reconstructed to a different degree and remodelled; but for the classic pattern in Regent Street has been substituted one reconstructed building and one entirely remodelled. Were it not that I do not wish to mention their names, I could give him examples of large numbers of other emporia throughout the country. As any shop fitter would say, there is a difference between reconstruction and remodelling. Reconstruction means replacement. Remodelling is a re-decoration in marble or bronze or other faces of one kind or another. That, in my experience, is the difference between reconstruction and remodelling, and it is germane to this discussion.

Mr. Arthur Colegate: We ought to try to help the Attorney-General in this matter. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) has done his bit, but I might point out that one of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's colleagues has got a still finer example in the remodelling of Carlton House Terrace to create the new Foreign Office. That constitutes the remodelling of a long series of dwelling-houses into offices. That is known as the remodelling of Carlton House Terrace.

Mr. Janner: The arguments we have heard should lead the Committee to realise that the interpretation of the word "remodel" is so wide that it would be absurd to put the tenant at the mercy of anyone who wanted to remodel. For my part, the whole idea of reconstruction as contained in this Clause is wrong. The Clause is not the same as the provision in the Scottish Measure, for the reason that under this subsection landlords are entitled to turn people out merely because they want to reconstruct. Here it is sought to amend the subsection to include people who for the benefit of their own artistic or inartistic taste, want to remodel. It is scandalous. I hope that this Amendment will be resisted, and that my right hon. and learned Friend, when he reconsiders this Bill, will not only throw out this Amendment but delete the whole subsection.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The first reappearance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General in this debate has been in the true tradition of the first appearance of British armies on the Continental battlefield—a gallant and good-tempered disaster. No doubt he will be true to the further and more flattering part of the tradition and go steadily from strength to strength. But the reason why the word "remodel" was inserted in the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, and why it has stood the test of time for 24 years, including two Socialist Governments who have not seen fit to amend that Act, is that the other words "pull down" or "demolish and reconstruct" are very definite words implying the total destruction or removal of the premises involved.
If some such word as "remodel" is not used, then partial schemes of readjustment are excluded by the words "pull down" in the Act of 1927 and the words "demolished and reconstructed" in this Bill. It is for that reason that the word "remodel" was inserted in the Act of 1927, and it is for the same reason that it is necessary in this Bill. Cases have arisen in practice where the landlord is able to show a remodelling which falls short of a total demolition and reconstruction. As the Attorney-General will know, if he has the same precise knowledge of the Town and Country Planning Act as he has of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, the word "demolish" there means total demolition: and other words


are applied to lesser matters of the adjustment of premises. There is a strong case for putting in these words. I hope that the Committee will not be asked to reject the Amendment on the rather unsubstantial grounds put forward this evening.

9.15 p.m.

Mi. Selwyn Lloyd: I gather that we have only a limited time, and I hope the Committee will not take too long to dispose of this matter, as I think the learned Attorney-General has gone some way to meet us. I would refer the Committee to paragraph 162 of the Report of the Leasehold Committee which, dealing with this question of landlord and tenant, said:
Subsection (3, b, ii) and (3, b, iii) enables the landlord to defeat the tenant's claim if the premises are required for demolition, remodelling or redevelopment, but makes no stipulation as to the character or dimensions of the work proposed. It is in the long-term interests of tenants "—
and this is what hon. Members opposite so often forget—
and the community—that no unnecessary restrictions should be placed on the rebuilding or remodelling of obsolete buildings, and we consider that reasonable provision should be made for such cases. It should not, however, be possible to use as an excuse for getting rid of an unwanted tenant such minor and non-essential operations as, for example, the erection of a new shop front which may not in any case he inconsistent with his continued occupation.
I understand that the Attorney-General says that substantial remodelling only comes within the definition of the word "reconstruction," and I would therefore ask my hon. Friend whether it is necessary to press the Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Molson: While it strikes me that the fact is that the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, did contain a special reference to this intermediate matter, I hope the Government will consider, between now and the Report stage, whether this really does give effect to what the learned Attorney-General said is the intention. Without asking for an assurance to that effect, but in the hope that he will try to make certain that the Bill does give effect to what he said was the intention, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Sir Patrick Spens: I beg to move, in page 9, line 34, at the end, to insert:
(d) that the tenant has given notice 01 termination of the tenancy and in consequence of that notice the landlord has contracted to sell or let the premises or has taken any other steps as a result of which he would in the opinion of the court he seriously prejudiced if he could not obtain possession of the premises; or
This, I believe, is an Amendment which will meet with acceptance on all sides of the Committee. One of the points of this Clause is that there shall be nothing to stop a tenant making an application for the extension of his lease, notwithstanding that he himself may have intimated to his landlord that he does not intend to continue his tenancy, and that, on the faith of such notice from the tenant, the landlord had himself entered into a contract either to sell or let the premises, or to take other steps as the result of which he ought now to be allowed to retain possession of the premises. This cannot apply to a very great number of cases, but it does apply to the case of the tenant who gives notice to the landlord that he does not want the premises and then changes his mind and says, "Well, after all, now I will make application." As we have seen during the earlier stages of this debate, if he does make such application, he then, in fact, secures for himself an extra period of the tenancy of the premises.
All the way through the discussion on this Bill, I have had in mind the point that one of the great faults under a Bill of this sort is that, if landlords know that leases are to expire at an early date, they do not wait until they have expired before they make arrangements as to what they are going to do with their property in future, and they do grant what are called reversionary leases to start on the day after the normal lease expires. Into every such arrangement this Bill enters, and allows the sitting tenant to obtain an extra year, or possibly an extra two years, and no one in the Committee throughout the debate has directed his mind to what is to be the effect on these contracts for reversionary agreements. It is not only the landlord who is going to be affected.
What is going to be the resulting position in law? I think the learned Attorney-General had better consider the point, because I have no idea. It may be that


such a contract will be frustrated, and that we shall have tenants coming along saying that the previous lease is due to expire on 31st March, 1951, and wanting it continued for another year. What is going to happen in such a case and what rights has the landlord got? Has the tenant a right of action for damages against the landlord for exercising his right to grant a reversionary lease? What is the position in law or is the whole thing frustrated? Absolutely nobody has directed his mind throughout the whole debate up to date, either on Second Reading or during the Committee stage, to that position, which is a very common position, but here at least we have this Amendment.
It is a comparatively small but very important. Amendment to ensure that if a tenant has intimated to his landlord that he is not going on with his tenancy when it is due to expire, then, at least, the landlord ought to be entitled to say to the court, "I am entitled to have possession of these premises in order to hand them over to the person with whom I have contracted to sell them or lease them." I cannot believe that that is a party matter. It is going far beyond the mere breaking of one contract; it is involving a number of people. If the Bill is left in its present form, I think it will create a very serious and thoroughly undesirable situation.

The Attorney-General: I have listened with a good deal of sympathy, if I may say so, to what the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), has said, but, as his Amendment now stands, it really involves a contradiction in terms of the existing Clauses of the Bill. His Amendment refers to the case where the tenant has given notice of termination of the tenancy. The Bill is not intended to catch that case; the Bill only catches the case where the tenancy has come to an end by the effluxion of time, and, consequently, I think it will appear at once to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the drafting of his Amendment is not quite appropriate to the case he wants to meet.
I understood from what he said that he really wants to raise a kind of estoppal against the tenant who says, "When my lease comes to an end in six months' time, I intend to clear out. I am not going to

ask for a renewal, and you can make your arrangements on that basis." It is certainly not the intention of the Bill to give the tenant who has given notice to quit a kind of opportunity of thinking twice about it, and, having given a notice to quit, which under the law as it now stands he is not entitled to withdraw, then to go to the tribunal and ask for a renewal.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment, we shall see if we can find a form of words which will meet the case he has in mind. I shall not give any guarantee about it because I think it is going to be a little difficult to find the appropriate, form of wording, but I quite see the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman contemplates. We think that, at first sight at all events, it would be unfair to allow a landlord, who had altered his position on the, faith of some representation his tenant had made to the effect that he was going to leave at the end of the tenancy, to be prejudiced by the tenant changing his mind, withdrawing his notice in the way in which he could not under the existing law, and making an application to the court. As I say, we shall look into the point, but I do not think it is an easy matter of drafting.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will bear in mind that under Clause 3 (1) a notice has to be given by the tenant if he does not want his tenancy to continue, and that, in that sense, such a notice is notice of termination. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear that in mind when looking at the rest of the Amendment?

Sir P. Spens: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Attorney-General for what he has said, but I want him, if he will, in addition to dealing with the smaller point on this Clause, also to consider the major point as to what is going to happen to landlords who in perfectly good faith granted reversionary leases on the basis that the existing leases were going to be terminated. Having raised the point, I am quite certain that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consider it, and so far as the particular point to which I have referred is concerned, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that the next two Amendments might be discussed together—in page 9, line 35, leave out paragraph (d), and in line 36 after "authority" insert: "that the Minister of Town and Country Planning has certified."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 9, line 35. to leave out paragraph (d).
I am sure the Committee will remember that in the general discussion of all our most reasonable Amendments at the beginning of the Committee stage, the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) rose to his feet and described all our Amendments as "wrecking," and he was supported by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale). I am delighted to find that on reconsideration he finds that some of our Amendments are well-founded, and I welcome his name and that of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) appended to this Amendment in our support. I should, however, make it clear that this curious conjunction of names in no sense indicates a coalition.
I ask the Committee to look at paragraph (d) of subsection (3). In answering a previous Amendment dealing with estate management the Solicitor-General put forward the argument that putting in a proviso that where possession was required in the interests of good estate management would mean taking the matter right out of the hands of the judge. Yet what do we find in paragraph (d)? We find these words:
where there subsists in the premises an interest belonging to a public authority, that in the public interest a new tenancy ought not to he granted.
So we find the Government themselves excluding from the so-called benefits of this Measure any premises in which there is an interest belonging to a public authority. "Public authority" is defined later on. It is much easier to say what is good estate management than it is to say what is in the public interest. That is a very vague phrase in common use, but I ask the Committee to consider what this means in relation to a new town. It means, for instance, that a shopkeeper who has moved out of Camberwell into Crawley new town will not, because of this paragraph, have the benefit of getting

an extension of his lease if the development corporation come down and say to the judge, "It is not in the public interest that he should have one."

The Attorney-General: The Attorney-General indicated dissent.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head. Let us look at the definition of "public authority" as set out in line 41 and the subsequent lines:
The reference … to an interest belonging to a public authority is a reference to an interest belonging to a Government department or held on behalf of His Majesty for the purposes of a Government department or held by a local authority (as defined in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947), by statutory undertakers (as so defined) or by a development corporation (as defined in the New Towns Act, 1946).
I think I am right in saying that this gives a power to a development corporation to come along and meet an application by a shopkeeper for an extension of his lease by saying, "It is not in the public interest," and if they do so the court shall not order the grant of a new tenancy. There is nothing here about reasonableness. That is mandatory. Where that is established, the court shall not order the grant of a new tenancy. I have taken th2, example of a new town, but the same applies to many shops of which a local authority is the landlord, where the local authority have the interest, and to any premises in which there is any interest of a public authority.
9.30 p.m.
I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman: Does paragraph (d) operate when a public authority has a sub-tenancy or a tenancy of part of the premises? What exactly is meant by "an interest belonging to a public authority"? Does it mean any interest, or have they got to have the whole subject matter of the tenancy agreement? Why is it that this particular exception in favour of certain categories of landlord is being made from the provisions of the Bill? It seems to me to follow that shopkeepers outside the areas of the new towns, shopkeepers who do not hold their premses from the local authority or a Government Department, and shopkeepers in premises in which there is no interest held by a public authority, are being differently treated from those coming within those categories. I ask the Attorney-General to explain exactly why this provision is in the Bill.

The Attorney-General: I must confess that I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was making rather a parody of the existing provisions of the Bill when he suggested that all that was necessary was for a development corporation to go to the court and say that it was in the public interest for them to have the premises and for a new lease not to be granted and that the county court judge would have no option but to refuse a renewal of the lease.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: That has been the argument of the Solicitor-General in relation to estate management.

The Attorney-General: I did not hear my right hon. and learned Friend's argument on that point, but it seems to me from my recollection of the provisions of the Bill that that is an entirely different point. It is perfectly true here that in this portion of the Bill—not in Part I but in this portion—we have thought it right to make a certain discrimination between the public authority and the private landlord. I do not say it applies in every case, but I suppose it is generally true that the local authorities and public authorities are more the custodians of the public interest than the ordinary private landlord—

Sir W. Darling: No.

The Attorney-General: —whose interests as a rule—and I am sure the experience of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), will bear me out— is a financial one. Certainly in the pattern of legislation dealing with public and local authorities over the last half century, it has been the view of successive Governments and Parliaments that it is proper to invest public authorities with powers which they may exercise in the public interests, and which nobody would ever dream of giving to a private landlord—powers of compulsory purchase and powers of management of a kind quite different from those vested in the ordinary landlord. I am not making any party political point, but I should have thought that it is right to say that the public authority is interested as a guardian of the public interest in the way in which it deals with its estate management. Its concern is not so immediately one merely of finance but of protecting and promoting the public interest generally. That is the reason why we make this discrimination.
What, in fact, is the discrimination which we make? It is only this: that

in the case of premises in which the public authority has an interest—it may be a sub-tenancy or it may be only a partial interest—it can go to the county court and say—and produce evidence to support what it says—that it is in the public interest that the lease of those premises should not be renewed. But the hon. and learned Gentleman will know very well from his experience, as I know from mine, that county court judges do not as a rule act on the ipse dixit particularly of public corporations. They require to be satisfied by evidence, by proof, that a thing is in the public interest, and if it appears to a county court judge, after having heard the whole of the evidence for the shopkeeper who wants a renewal and for the public corporation that wants to avoid a renewal, that it is contrary to the public interest to renew that lease, who is to say that the lease ought to be renewed?
I should have thought that this was a provision which would commend itself to hon. Members on both sides of the House as being clearly necessary for the protection of local authorities when they are acting in the promotion of the public interest, and only when they are so acting, that being the matter which it falls to the county court judge to decide on application under the Clause.

Mr. MacColl: I am rather afraid that my right hon. and learned Friend may feel that he is being shot at from the opposite point of view to that expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), but I should like to put to him certain practical difficulties which occur to me in the Clause and which I have tried to meet in the Amendment on the Order Paper in my name and that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Captain Field)—in line 36, after "authority," insert:
that the Minister of Town and Country Planning has certified.
In that Amendment there is reference to the Minister of Town and Country Planning. Since I put down the Amendment, the leopard has changed his spots and, on the face of it, in that sense the Amendment is now wrong, but the principle is the same. I should like to take the decision of what is the public interest from the discretion of the county


court judge and direct the county court judge to rely on a certificate from the Ministry of Local Government and Planning.
There is one respect in which I think most of the Committee will be agreed. We have continually emphasised the undesirability of placing too much weight on the shoulders of the county court judge and of leaving him too much discretion. That point was made by the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), among others, in a discussion on the question of fixing a reasonable rent. The hon. and learned Gentleman then spoke about the Clause as placing far too great a burden on the discretion of the county court judge.
I agree that to charge the county court judge with deciding whether or not the timing of a particular planning development is or is not in the public interest is placing upon him an intolerable responsibility. Perhaps I could take as one illustration the example given by the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South—the case of the new town which is developing its town centre, and which has already bought the existing business leases in anticipation of that development. An outline plan has been prepared and has been the subject of a public inquiry in which evidence has been called on both sides. The Minister has approved the proposal.
Then, when the new town corporation think that the time has arrived for them to develop the town centre, they find that they have to start proving the whole case for the new town and for that particular type of plan for the town centre from scratch before county court judges who are not planning experts and who, as hon. Members who are more experienced than I have said, vary in temperament, in outlook and in attitude to these problems. It seems to me that it would be much simpler and more satisfactory to leave the decision about the expediency, the timing of the development and its character and design to the planning Ministry who have already approved the outline plan rather than suddenly to bring into it the county court judge.
That is a general point, but I should also like to make a particular point that in the Town and Country Planning Act,

1944, which was not an Act passed by this Government, when a similar situation arose in the case of the Rent Restriction Acts, the planning authority could, under Section 30, ignore the Rent Restriction Acts in the case of property which the Minister certified was required immediately for the purpose for which it was acquired.
To continue the analogy, the position is even more complicated when the new town corporation finds itself with a mixed area, partly of commercial property and partly of residential property. As I see it—my right hon. and learned Friend will correct me if I misunderstood him—the new town corporations will have to go, on the one hand, to the Ministry to convince the Minister that the time is ripe to take this property into their possession for development, and at the same time, in the case of commercial property, they will have to go to the county court judge and try to convince him of the same thing. If they succeed with the county court judge and fail with the Minister, or succeed with the Minister and fail with the county court judge, their position in either case will be completely ruined, because they will not be able to undertake the development unless they get the whole area.
The point I want to put is that, if we accept the intention of this subsection—and I would agree that it is desirable and, indeed, essential if we are to have any movement forward in planning development—we ought to take the burden off the county court judge and place it on the Minister, who already must be concerned with this problem, leaving it to the county court judge to say, "I am not a planning expert, I do not know all the ins and outs of commercial development, but one thing I can say is that I have seen the certificate of the Minister and that is enough for me."
May I finish by taking up the example quoted by the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South, who complained that the shopkeeper in Camberwell who was going to a new town might find himself dispossessed. What is more likely is that the shopkeeper from Camberwell might never see the new town, because it might never be possible to develop a new town owing to the difficulties under this subsection. In view of the slowness of the development of these new towns,


about which hon. Members opposite so often complain, I thought that they would have been very careful before subjecting this type of development to further difficulties.

Brigadier Medlicott: It appears to me that the Attorney-General's arguments would be very sound if this were permanent legislation instead of a standstill Measure. He has tried to distinguish between public authorities having an interest in property and other kinds of owners, and however valid or invalid these distinctions may be, they are only applicable to a permanent state of the law. If his argument rests upon that kind of distinction under a standstill Measure, it confirms that this subsection is quite out of place in this Bill.

The Attorney-General: We have not very much time to deal with the remaining Clauses of the Bill, but I thought it would be helpful if I intervened at once to deal particularly with the Amendment which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) to which he has spoken just now. That speech was, of course, really directed in the opposite sense to that of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), who moved the Amendment. Under the Bill as drafted, it would be the county court judge who would decide whether or not it was in the public interest—and contrary to the view expressed by the hon. and learned Member included in the words "public interest" obviously would be the question whether or not it was reasonable, because what is unreasonable is very often contrary to the public interest—that the application should be granted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes took the view that that was a matter which could more conveniently be left to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. We, of course, thought of that method when we were drafting the Bill. It is a very familiar method in many of the Sections of the Town and Country Planning Act. There Ministers are given power to certify in the way suggested by my hon. Friend, and I would agree with him at once that if this were permanent legislation, where long-term development proposals were under consideration—proposals which were

subject to the general control of the Minister—then it would be more appropriate to give this power to the Minister than to the county court judge. The county court judge is not the planning authority, and the Minister is.
9.45 p.m.
Here we are dealing with legislation of a purely temporary character which no doubt in some cases may impose hardship or inconvenience upon landlords. That being so, we thought it right to reduce to a minimum the cases in which Government Departments, a particular Minister, or a particular kind of public authority, should be given privileges under the Bill which are not accorded to landlords in general. It was with that view that we thought it better in dealing with this temporary privilege to make the judge of the public interest the county court judge, who would hear on the spot the evidence in the particular case.
I do not think that that would result in any conflict between the Minister and the county court judge. The Minister would decide whether a particular development was required and whether it would involve taking over a particular premises. The county court judge, having no doubt in mind the Minister's development plans, would decide whether the public interest was violated by deferring the operation of those plans for a year or at the most for two years. That seems to me a fair way of dealing with the matter.
I hope that the Committee will now be able to come to a conclusion on the special privilege that we have granted here, one which is right from the point of view of the community as a whole. The machinery for the granting of it through the county court judges of the country is likely to operate satisfactorily and to enable the county court judges to take account of the circumstances, the reasonableness, and so on, of the case. It is likely to result in justice being done in the public interest, as the Clause provides.

Mr. Foster: I found myself in agreement with quite a few of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. McColl) but I draw a different con clusion. I should like to ask the Attorney-General one or two questions. The words "in the public interest" are


very dangerous indeed. Many things have happened in the country which are not, in the view of the majority of the people, in the public interest, yet in the cause of liberty they allow them to continue. In my submission it would be placing an intolerable burden on a county court judge, to ask him to decide whether the existence of a particular shop for another year was or was not in the public interest.
We should get local authorities saying, "This shop sells undesirable things. It is a herb shop and we think a herb shop in this place is not in the public interest." It is not a question of fact like deciding whether somebody has or had not broken a contract. It involves the particular privileges of a county court judge, his social philosophy, his ideology. It is not a question which can be proved in court. In the cause of liberty we have decided that we shall not allow the State to say, "This is against the public interest; out it must go." There may be various views about the matter. I think the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), agrees with this argument because he has signed the Amendment. It will be very dangerous.
Under the Amendment by the hon. Member for Widnes, we would have to accept the "Say-so" of the Minister of Local Government and Planning on a question on which he may take quite a different view from the majority of the people of the country. It is not only the planning that matters but a person's views about the nation as a whole. It may not be in the public interest to have a shop that, at the same time, carries on a commission agency, but in the cause of freedom we do not interfere, although we may not approve of it.
The amendment which we suggest is that it should be removed entirely. We believe that the remedies of compulsory purchase and the remedies given under the town and country planning Acts generally are fully sufficient to protect the ordinary public interest. A thing which should not be encouraged in any direction is to give the courts the judgment of what is in the public interest if we can possibly avoid it. It is a very loose term and, with the greatest respect to all county court judges, it is one where they cannot help bringing in their own philosophy. If hon. Members were

sitting as county court judges and had to decide what was or was not in the public interest, I guarantee there would he 20 or 30 different views on the same facts. I see the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) nodding. It is a very strong argument.
It also involves a very odd demand as to what kind of evidence should be brought forward. A local authority might say that it had always taken the view that homeopathic shops were against the public interest because they did not believe that the system of homeopathic medicines was in accordance with the public interest. They might say that they were not in favour of the existence of a homeopathic shop which sold herbs, because it did a lot of harm to people. I am not subscribing to that view but I know that it is held and a local authority might hold it. What is the county court judge to do'? Is he to be influenced by the fact that he is a believer in homeopathic medicine? If he is, he will find it extraordinarily difficult to find that homeopathic evidence before him is wrong and that the other side is right. This is not a very far-fetched instance. It is only an instance of what might happen in any case.
There are also statutory undertakers, local authorities and all kinds of people. I imagine that it covers the Electricity Authority. They may or may not think that too many shops selling gas appliances are against the public interest because they feel that in the district emphasis ought to be on electricity. Apparently they could try to persuade the county court judge that in the district electrical appliances ought to be sold and that there should not be too many shops selling gas appliances.
I do not know whether the National Coal Board comes within the definition. Perhaps the Attorney-General can tell me. Perhaps the National Coal Board could come along with their own point of view. Economic principles and all kinds of principles are involved in the conception of "public interest." I ask the Attorney-General to consider these arguments in the light of what the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) said. I am very much against his Amendment as I think it would be a serious infringement of the principles of liberty.

Mr. Gibson: I hope that the Committee will not accept the Amendment, in spite of the fact that it bears the signature of two of my hon. Friends. It ought to be pointed out that we are not really discussing something which is "in the public interest"; it has also to be premises in which a public authority already has an interest. It means that the local authorities must already have purchased in some way an interest, normally by the compulsory purchase order procedure, under which they will have been subjected to a great deal of public criticism and inquiry.
I hope hon. Members opposite who protest so much about slowness in housing will take note that a whole housing scheme in London has been held up for two years because of the difficulty of getting control of one shop in a pivotal position on the site. I suggest to the Committee that it would be unfair to the authority which has acquired that interest for public development to be left with a barrier, because under this Amendment one shop could hold up the whole development for two years. This Clause provides that where in such a case the interest is already owned by the local authority, the judge may be able to decide, if it is for the public good, that that interest shall remain with the local authority and that the tenant shall be removed.
One hon. Member said that the interest of private enterprise in these matters was merely to obtain a rent, and as big a rent as possible. The interest of the local authority is the public good. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not necessarily."] I am surprised at hon. Members opposite. After the way in which they jabber sometimes about housing progress and the progress of new towns and other large projects, I should have thought that they were concerned with things which were for the public good. If it is in the interest of property owners, they are very much concerned about the public good. I have discovered that during the debates on this Bill.
The fact is that a good local authority which has to move a shop in the course of its development rehouses the shopkeeper in another shop or provides him with compensation sufficiently large to enable him to find other premises. In most cases they are re-housed in other

shop premises owned by the local authority. That being so, there can be no serious difficulty so far as such a tenant is concerned. I think this Clause will work reasonably well, and I hope that the Committee will not accept the Amendment, which would cut out the possibility of this kind of development being carried on in the next few years.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: We cannot allow the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) to get away with that speech. If the landlord is a Socialist controlled public authority, it is one thing; if the landlord is a private individual, then quite a different set of circumstances must apply, according to the hon. Member. A public authority can put up the rent, even of a small property, as much as it likes, but for everybody else the Rent Restriction Acts must apply.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Mr. Ungoed-Thomas indicated dissent.

Mr. Lloyd: What we are suggesting here is that exactly the same criteria should apply to the public authority as to the private landlord. If, to take the hon. Member's example, it is the practice of a public authority to provide alternative accommodation when dispossessing tenants, it can get possession under the provisions of this Clause because subsection (3, b) makes it quite clear that if the landlord has offered alternative accommodation which is suitable, then the court has power to make the order. In exactly the same case if the landlord, the public authority, wants possession of the premises so that it can proceed with its reconstruction or the provision of more accommodation, than under this Clause it can get possession.
10.0 p.m.
If the Government had had the sense to accept our Amendment about good estate management, then I agree that it would have widened the thing and would have been something which would have applied to both the public authority and to the private landlord. But no; the Government's attitude to this matter shows how entirely bogus is their argument regarding the Bill. They say that this is a standstill Measure to preserve the status quo while something is being worked out, but, of course, as far as the public authorities are concerned there is no standstill and no preservation of the status quo. In that case, the private individual


must go to the wall. I hope that we shall vote on the Amendment.

The Chairman: I hope that the Committee will very soon be able to come to a decision.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: It seems to me from the discussion we have heard this evening that the Clause ought not to stand as it is. I entirely disagree with the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), and I hope very much that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). I do not think it is right to leave to a judge the responsibility of deciding what is in the public interest. I do not think that that is a judicial function. It is not a question of fact, nor is it a matter on which evidence can be freely given.
Should a judge be faced with this task, when ex hypothesi a local authority is giving evidence about what it considers to be in the public interest, it would be very difficult to imagine any case in which a county court judge would be able to take a view that something was contrary to the public interest after the local authority concerned had given evidence to the fact that it was in the public interest. I should have thought that the question whether anything is in the public interest or not is a political, and not a judicial, function. Therefore, the House of Commons should not attempt to delegate that responsibility to the judiciary, but, by accepting the Amendment of my hon. Friend, should put the responsibility fairly and squarely on the political body which is responsible for saying whether in a given circumstance the public interest is such as could override the ordinary provisions of the Bill.
After all, opinions may differ as to whether a particular decision is or is not in the public interest, but that is a political matter and one on which people have their remedies if they disagree with the opinion of the public interest as expressed either by the Government Department or by the local authority concerned. If it is a Government Department who give their ipse dixit as to whether something is or is not in the public interest, then questions can be put in the House. I hope, therefore, that on reflection my right hon. and learned Friend will accept the

Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes.

Mr. Pickthorn: I hope that I can put plainly the question which I wish to address to the Attorney-General and indicate very shortly why it seems to me important. The question I want to put is about some words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He said that "the county court judge, no doubt having in mind the Minister's development plans." and so on. I am always rather put on doubt when people say "no doubt." I wondered how we were to be sure that that would be so. What is the machinery for making sure that the county court judge, in judging this question, would have in mind the Minister's development plans, and how would he get them?
My second point, which may, perhaps, indicate a little the importance of my first question, is this. The whole debate has been conducted upon the basis that what the county court judge has to decide is whether what is proposed by the authority is in the public interest. But that is not what the Bill says. The Bill puts it the other way round. As the Bill is drafted, what the county court judge has to decide has nothing whatever to do with development plans or what the authorities might otherwise do, but whether the tenancy ought to go on, and there is nothing explicitly made plain—and I appeal to the lawyers here—whether it is implicitly beyond doubt that what that involves is judging if the alternative use is in the public interest, which is the basis on which the whole discussion has been conducted.

Mr. Janner: I am sorry I have to intervene, because I had placed my name to a separate Amendment. I did not add my name to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller). If I had seen his Amendment beforehand I would have wanted to see what were the reasons which prompted him in putting it forward. My reasons were entirely different, and I think it important that the Committee should know what they are. In the first place, the Scottish Act, which has been referred to from time to time as being a model which we should follow, does not contain this Clause. It does not contain the Clause for very good


reasons; first, because it obviously was not necessary and its omission has never worked any hardship, but secondly, because the Clause in the Bill covers the points the Attorney-General wants to cover.
Apart entirely from the two points made by the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), what has been overlooked in this debate is the fact that there is a paragraph (e) which states,
that having regard to all the circumstances of the case greater hardship would be caused by ordering the grant of a new tenancy than by refusing to do so.
Whoever takes this matter into consideration must realise that that is sufficient to cover every point that has been made in the course of this debate. If the public authority really needs the premises, and if it offers alternative accommodation, there is an end to the matter. If it really needs the premises, greater hardship would be caused should there be a refusal to grant the termination of the tenancy; obviously, therefore, this paragraph (e) covers the case. I think it is ridiculous to introduce on this Measure at the present time, the argument about local authorities not being entitled to possession if there is a real need to have the tenancy of a place. On the other hand, to put on the county court judge a further onus, when he can decide the matter on the question of hardship already, is not necessary. I believe the reasons I have given are reasons which should induce the Government to abide by the method adopted in the Scottish Act and leave out this paragraph.

The Attorney-General: I do hope the Committee will feel able to come to a decision on this matter now. We did have an understanding through the usual channels that if we had a suspension of only one hour it was likely that we would get the Bill. In saying that, I am appealing

to my hon. Friends as well as to other hon. Members. I am not attempting to assess which has spoken more—I have not been here the whole of the time. But this is an important Bill and it is desirable that it should be obtained as quickly as possible. There was that understanding on both sides of the Committee, that we would finish by 11 o'clock. The chances of that seem to be growing more and more remote.

I would only add one comment to the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pick-thorn). He put to me that I used the expression that the county court judge would no doubt have in mind the Minister's plans. The onus would be on the public authority, seeking to make a case, if it thinks the Minister's plans are relevant, to establish the Minister's plans in court. I do not think there is anything very much in the second point put by the hon. Member. The county court judge will have to try to balance the interests of renewing the tenancy on the one hand and the public interest on the alternative proposals of the local authority or the public authority on the other and so have to decide which is in the public interest.

Mr. Pickthorn: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been kind enough to answer me directly. Then it does mean that the county court judge will not have the development plans in his mind unless the local authority puts them there?

The Attorney-General: Certainly the county court judge—and this is one of the advantages of procedure of this kind of temporary legislation—will have to decide on the evidence.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 141.

Division No. 27.]
AYES
[10.11 p.m.


Adams, Richard
Boardman, H.
Burton, Miss E.


Ayles, W. H.
Bottomley, A. G.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)


Bacon, Miss A
Bowden, H. W.
Champion, A. J.


Balfour, A
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Clunie, J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Brockway, A Fenner
Cocks, F. S


Hartley, P
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Coldrick, W


Benn, Hon. A N. Wedgwood
Brooks, T J. (Normanton)
Collick, P.


Benson, G
Broughton, Dr A. D. D
Collindridge, F.


Beswick, F
Brown, George (Belper)
Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Blenkinsop, A
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham)


Blyton, W. R.
Burke. W A
Cove, W G




Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Robens, A.


Crosland, C, A. R
Jeger, Dr S. W (St. Pancras, S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Darling, G. (Hillsboro')
Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Keenan, W
Royle, C.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
King, H. M.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Davies, S O. (Merthyr)
Lee, F. (Newton)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lindgren, G. S
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Deer, G.
MacColl, J. E.
Simmons, C. J


Delargy, H, J
McInnes, J
Slater, J.


Donnelly, D.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Driberg, T E. N.
McLeavy, F.
Sorensen, R, W.


Dye, S.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F


Ede. Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mallalieu, J P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Sparks, J A.


Edwards, W. J (Stepney)
Manuel, A C.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Ewart, R.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A
Stross, Dr. B.


Fernyhough, E.
Mathers, Rt Hon. George
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Finch, H. J.
Messer, F
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Middleton, Mrs. L
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Follick, M.
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Fraser, T (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R
Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W)


Gibson, C. W
Moeran, E. W
Thurtle, Ernest


Gilzean, A.
Monslow, W.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G


Greenwood, Anthony W J (Rossendale)
Moody, A. S.
Tomney, F.


Grenfell, D. R.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Turner-Samuels, M


Grey, C. F
Morrison, Rt Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Ungoed-Thomas, A. L


Griffiths, D (Rother Valley)
Mort, D. L.
Wallace, H. W.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Moyle, A.
Weitzman, D.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mulley, F W.
West, D. G.


Hall, J (Gateshead, W.)
Neal, H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Hall, Rt. Hn W. Glenvil (Colne V'll'y)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J
Wilkins, W. A.


Hardy, E. A.
Oliver, G. H.
Willey, F T (Sunderland)


Hargreaves, A.
Orbach, M
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Harrison, J.
Padley, W. E
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Paget, R. T
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hayman, F. H,
Parker, J.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Herbison, Miss M
Pearson, A
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Huyton)


Holman, P
Porter, G.
Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)


Houghton, Douglas
Price, M, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Winterbottom, R. E. (Bright[...]de)


Hoy, J.
Proctor, W. T.
Wise, Major F J


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)
Rees, Mrs. D.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)



Hynd, H (Accrington)
Reid, W. (Camlachie)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hynd, J B. (Altercliffe)
Rhodes, H.
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Hannan.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Richards, R





NOES


Alport, C. J. M
Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
de Chair, S.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Arbuthnot, John
Deedes, W. F.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Drewe, C.
Linstead, H. N.


Baker, P.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Baldock, J M
Duncan, Capt. J A. L
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Baldwin, A E.
Duthie W S.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S


Banks, Col. C
Eden, Rt. Hon. A
Mackeson, Brig. H R


Baxter, A. B.
Fisher, Nigel
McKibbin, A.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Fort, R.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bell, R. M.
Foster, J. G.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Bennett, Sir p. (Edgbaston)
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)


Birch, Nigel
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P I
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Bishop, F. P.
Gage, C. H
Maitland, Comdr. J. W


Black, C. W.
Galbraith, T. G. D (Hillhead)
Manningham-Buller, R. E


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C (Wells)
Garner-Evans, E, H. (Denbigh)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Boothby, R.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Maude, J. C. (Exeter)


Bossom, A. C.
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Medlicott, Brigadier F


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Harvey, Air-Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Mellor, Sir J.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hay, John
Molson A. H. E.


Braine, B.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir C
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S (Cirencester)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Heald, L F.
Nutting, Anthony


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col YV
Heath, E. R
Oakshott, H. D.


Brooke, H. (Hampstead)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W D


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Higgs, J M. C
Pickthorn, K.


Burden, Squadron-Leader F, A.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythemhawe)
Powell, J. Enoch


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)
Profumo, J. D.


Channon, H.
Holmes, Sir J Stanley (Harwich)
Raikes, H. V.


Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grinstead)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.
Redmayne, M.


Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Renton, D. L. M


Colegale, A.
Hurd, A. R.
Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Craddock, G. B. (Spefthorne)
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hylton-Foster, H. B
Roper, Sir H.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col 0 E
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Ropner, Col L.


Crouch, R F.
Johnson, Howard S (Kemptown)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)







Russell, R. S.
Sutcliffe, H.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Scott, Donald
Teeling, William
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon C


Shepherd, W. S. (Cheadle)
Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)
Watkinson, M.


Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)
Tilney, John
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Touche, G. C.
While, J. Baker (Canterbury)


Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Turton, R. H.
Wills, G.


Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N. Fylde)
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Stevens, G. P.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Steward, W A. (Woolwich, W.)
Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Storey, S.
Wakefield, Sir W. W. (St. Marylebone)



Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Studholme, H. G.
Ward, Hon, G. R. (Worcester)
Major Conant and Mr. Vosper.

Mrs. Corbet: I beg to move, in page 10, line 3, at the end, to insert:
(4) Where at the commencement of this Act any authority is empowered by any enactment or order to purchase compulsorily any land specifically described in that enactment or order or is empowered by an authorisation given under section two of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, to take possession of any land, there shall, for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection, be deemed, during a period of six months from the commencement of this Act or during such period as the authority remains so empowered as aforesaid (whichever period first expires), to be subsisting in that land an interest belonging to that authority.
The Committee have decided to retain subsection (3, d) of the Clause, and I am asking that where a local authority has power to acquire an interest, but for a certain rather limited period has not acquired that interest, there should be an extension of the privilege under this subsection. It is mainly to cover the case where an authority which has the power to purchase has gone further and has entered into an agreement, but where the legal formalities are not yet completed.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The Committee will want to know a good deal more about this Amendment than the hon. Lady has so far seen fit to vouchsafe to us. Her Amendment as it reads applies only to cases where, either by Private Bill procedure or by a compulsory purchase order, the local authority in question has already got power to acquire land, and I so understood the opening part of the hon. Lady's observations but I found her last sentence rather baffling when she went on to refer to cases in which the local authority had agreed to purchase but certain unspecified legal formalities had not, as yet, gone through. Her Amendment has nothing to do with purchase by agreement.

Mrs. Corbet: This was intended mainly to cover that kind of case.

Mr. Walker-Smith: This confusion is, unhappily, worse confounded. The hon.

Lady now agrees that her Amendment does not refer to acquisition by agreement, but she says that it is intended to do so.

Mrs. Corbet: Not agreement on purchase, but the terms of purchase.

Mr. Walker-Smith: In that case, the Committee is left with this position, if I now understand the Amendment. Where a compulsory purchase order is served, this special exemption will continue for the local authority throughout the whole of the period in which the local authority may delay before serving notice.

Mrs. Corbet: The Amendment states specifically:
during a period of six months 
in order to deal with that.

Mr. Walker-Smith: By a genial process of question and answer we are arriving at the real intention behind this Amendment. It is most necessary that we should understand what is meant. I assure the hon. Lady that I approach her Amendment with the greatest of sympathy, not only because it is moved by her but for that reason among others. But if all that it is sought to do by the Amendment is, where there has been either a compulsory order or a Private Bill purchase, to keep the local authority interest in the land subsisting for six months after the beginning of the Act, and if the effect of that would be to expedite the processes of local authorities in serving notice after they have made a compulsory purchase order, I would be inclined to be a little more smpathetic towards the Amendment than I was at first sight.

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) has explained the purpose of this Amendment which we think would improve the Bill. I do not think that I can add anything to what she has said, and I have pleasure in accepting the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11.—(POWER OF COURT TO GRANT NEW TENANCY WHERE LANDLORD A TENANT.)

Amendment made: In page 10, line 22, to leave out paragraph (a).—[The Attorney-General.]

Sir P. Spens: I beg to move, in line 30, at the end, to add:
Provided that—

(i) the court shall have power to order a landlord or superior landlord whose interest will expire at or before the end of the said period to give notice of the application to his immediate landlord;
(ii) the court shall not order the grant of a new tenancy by virtue of the provisions of this section unless the court is satisfied that a landlord or superior landlord whose reversion will he affected by the new tenancy has had an opportunity of appearing before the court and making representations in respect thereof.
The point here is a fairly short one. Clause 11 provides that where we get a reversion on a lease which is running out, before the expiration of a year there have to be two extensions, one for the first lease, one for the second and so on. The procedure is not very clear in the Act, but, so far as I can see, the tenant would only bring his immediate landlord to the court of first instance, and the Clause empowers the court to make an order which will affect superior reversioners. In these circumstances, it seems to us quite wrong that we should not give these superior reversioners notice of the matter so that they have a chance of being heard before the court, and we therefore suggest a proviso so that the superior landlord should have notice of what is going on and have a chance of being represented and of saying what he has to say.

The Attorney-General: We entirely agree with the object which the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind. It is a procedural matter. We think it is better not to include procedural matters in the Bill itself, because it casts doubt on the extent of the rule-making power. We will, therefore, see—and I give this undertaking—that the point which has been put by him and which is a good one is covered by the county court rules.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: While welcoming what the learned Attorney-General has said, may I ask him to reconsider the question whether it should not appear in the Bill? In view of what

is already contained in Clause 11, I should have thought it was necessary to have some special reference to the position of superior landlords, and it is really more useful to have it there defined than tucked away in some rule not so readily known.

The Attorney-General: I will certainly look at that.

Sir P. Spens: In view of the learned Attorney-General's undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12.—(PROVISIONS AS TO LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT, 1927.)

Mr. Janner: I beg to move, in page 11, line 20, after "Where" to insert:
the tenant has served a notice requiring a new lease of premises under section five of the said Act of nineteen hundred and twenty-seven and remains in possession of the premises under some undertaking given or otherwise until the termination of proceedings before the tribunal under the said Act of nineteen hundred and twenty-seven or where.
Under this Clause, a section of the Landlord and Tenant Act is referred to, and an interim order can be made by a court, the effect of which is accepted as a protection for the tenant by the framers of this Bill, but this protection will not operate if the solicitors for the landlord have given an undertaking that no further step will be taken in the matter and the court has therefore refused to make an order. There has been a recent case on the point, and I think it is a matter on which some provision should be made to protect the tenant in respect of whom such an undertaking has been given.

The Solicitor-General: The case to which my hon. Friend refers is the British Colonial Furniture Company, Ltd. against William McIlroy, Limited, and in that case the Court of Appeal refused to give an interim order because the learned judges had said that they could not be expected to assume that the law would ultimately be enacted as in this Bill. They said they could only look at the law as it stood. It is obvious that the Amendment, if accepted, can only apply when the Bill becomes law, and that the courts will only have regard to its provisions as an existing Act of


Parliament. That being so, it is reasonable to suppose that they will be ready to make interim orders in respect of these matters as in the case referred to. No possible purpose is served by this Amendment, which is completely irrelevant and could have no conceivable effect.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Weitzman: I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend to look at this matter again. It is not quite as simple as he has indicated in what he has said. If subsection (6) of Clause 12 becomes law, the position will be that when an undertaking is given by a landlord or some arrangement is made whereby parties remain in the premises until the matter is disposed of, when the matter comes before the court the court may well say that, as there is an undertaking, an interim order should not be made. It will do no harm whatever if this Amendment is accepted.
I should like to point out to my right hon. and learned Friend that if this Amendment is not accepted, a person who accepts that undertaking or remains in the premises in the absence of an interim order will be in a very difficult position. This is especially so where the undertaking has been given before the Bill becomes law. When the cause is eventually heard by the tribunal, if the subsection remains as it is now, there is no power whatever for the tribunal to say that the person's position until the order is made shall be considered as possession for the purposes of the Act. I am sure it was not the intention of those who drafted this Bill that an injustice of this kind should result, and I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to look at it again.

Mr. J. Foster: We regard this as an objectionable Amendment, but if there is anything in it, we will examine it and put something down before the Report stage.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13.—(APPEALS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hay: I do not think we should hurry past this important Clause without

some discussion of the principles involved. Clause 13 completely shuts off any of the parties who might have to go to court under Part II of the Bill from any opportunity of appealing against a decision of the court. When the House was discussing the Second Reading of the Bill, a hon. Member opposite—I think it was the hon. Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman)—protested against Clause 13.
If I understood the Attorney General's argument at that stage, it was that we should not have a right of appeal in this case for two main reasons—first, because this was only temporary legislation and it was unwise to burden the Court of Appeal with too many applications; and secondly, there were very few matters in the Bill which could possibly be the subject of appeal. As to the first point, I must say that I do not think it has much validity, but the second point is rather more important and I should like to spend a few moments in dealing with it.
As the progress of the Bill has continued, we have seen various Amendments that we have put down to clarify difficult and awkward points continually turned down by the Government. We feel that now, more than ever before, it is vital that we should have a right of appeal in this Bill. There are many subjects of appeal. The Bill is full of them. We have had two discussions to-night on matters which might very well be subjects of appeal. We have had a discussion on demolition and reconstruction, and it would be useful if the meaning of these terms were to be decided by the Court of Appeal. They might also decide what is meant by "in the public interest." There are many things in the Bill which ought to be the subjects of judicial decisions at a higher level than that of the county court judge.
When the Rent Acts were being passed by Parliament, it was expected that they would be temporary pieces of legislation, but we know that they have given rise to many judicial decisions and I can see some of the expressions in this Bill giving rise to questions of appeal as much as those Acts do. There have been many cases to decide what is prejudicial to "terms and conditions," an expression which is repeated in Clause 10 of this Bill. There have been many questions. too, about what is meant by "reasonable


alternative accommodation." That phrase is repeated in this Bill. There have been heaven knows how many questions on what constitutes "greater hardship." This, again, appears in Clause 10. On all these points, I think there ought to be a right of appeal.
Let me make a final reference to what I think has been an unsatisfactory development in the law on rent tribunals. The same provision was made in that law, namely, there was no right of appeal. In consequence, there has been dissatisfaction and even hardship. The matter was the subject of discussion in the House some time ago. I am very much afraid that if the same sort of provision is made in this Bill, that there shall be no right of appeal, we shall have the same sorry story of dissatisfaction and discontent. If there are matters which ought to be, and which could be, the subject of reasonable litigation between the parties, I do not think the Committee ought to say that the parties are to be prevented from carrying the matter to the highest court of the country.

The Attorney-General: I could not help thinking that the references which the hon. Member made to our experiences under the rent restriction legislation were unhappy in this context. One of the things which I should have thought everyone would want to avoid in a temporary Bill of this kind, dealing in the main with small premises, is a repetition of the amount of litigation which there has been under the Rent Restriction Acts. We do not want that. I should have thought that everyone would agree with that view. The Bill is dealing, in the main, with small premises. That has been the position so far as it has arisen in Scotland, and I apprehend that it will be the same here.
I think everyone will agree that with this temporary Bill it is most undesirable to make it possible to build up a complicated mass of case law dealing with these different points. As the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) has reminded the Committee, most of the questions arising under this Bill will turn upon fact, and would not properly be subject to appeal. But very often an appeal is lodged upon a question of fact and the matter argued at considerable expense, with profit to the lawyers of appeal only, and at the end of the hearing it is

said that the question was one of fact and that it is a matter for the county court. The appeal is then dismissed. Demolitions or reconstruction in particular cases, or whether a particular matter is in the public interest, are questions of fact which it would be proper to leave to the county court judge to deal with under a Bill of this kind.

Mr. Hay: It was not my intention to put it that way. I was pointing out that such expressions might have a different construction or be differently construed by different people and that there should be some kind of appeal to decide who was right.

The Attorney-General: I doubt whether as a court of law the House of Lords would lay down a definition of what the words meant. It would say that the particular case, and the particular premises involved, must be looked at, and that it must be left to a county court judge to say whether what is proposed is reconstruction or demolition, or whether it is in the public interest. These are matters which cannot, because of their nature, be defined in strict legal terms.
But the real objection to this Amendment, which I am sure will appeal to the hon. Member, is the position of the unsuccessful applicant turned down by the county court judge who could have got at most a year's increase of tenancy, in addition to giving notice of appeal. He will see his solicitor and start an appeal and be as slow about this as the rules permit. He will take every step of the most dilatory sort that he can. By that means he would maintain himself in occupation of the premises for what might be as long as, and in some cases longer, than the maximum period of renewal of the lease he could have obtained at the hands of the county court judge. To have an appeal here would provide a device to enable tenants to continue in occupation although their application had been rejected by the county court judge.
In general, I am not in favour of excluding appeals to higher courts, although I have always held that there should be a limitation on the number of appeals that can be taken but I ask the Committee to agree with me that this Amendment would bring no benefit to anybody at the end of the day. If the appeal went forward, the landlord


would often find at the end of the day that he had spent a good sum of money simply to let his tenant remain in possession for what was the maximum period he could have obtained in any event. I ask the Committee to say that that would not be an improvement in the Bill.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am afraid that I disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General. In the first place, I think a very strong case has to be made out to deprive the subject of the right he possesses now to appeal from a county court judge to the Court of Appeal. The tendency has been far too prevalent in the last few years to deprive ordinary people of the right of appeal which they otherwise would have. I start off my consideration of this question from that angle. I think that a strong case has to be made out, and I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentle-man has done so. I quite agree with him that many of the questions which would fall to be determined here would be questions of fact decided by the county court judge, and I began to think, from what the right hon. and learned Gentle. man said, that he must have been more fortunate than I have been to get any question of fact considered by the Court of Appeal on appeal from the county court judge. I think the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) will agree with me that it is quite impossible to get an appeal on a question of fact from the county court judge on its legs at all. Therefore, in considering this question, I think one can eliminate the number of appeals on the question of fact that come to the courts.
The only real question that has to be considered is whether there are likely to be difficult questions of law here arising out of the interpretation of Part H where, for instance, one decision of a county court judge might conflict with another. I think myself that the risk is by no means small of getting different interpretations and different decisions on points of law by different county court judges. They are all equal in jurisdiction and in status, and one has to assume that there is that possibility. I believe there is that possibility, and it seems to me that there will be cases where there should be the right to go to the Court of Appeal, if necessary by leave of the court. I would not mind

having the right of appeal by the leave of the Court of Appeal, because it would be an appeal on a matter of law. Here in this Clause we are asked to say that there should be no appeal on law.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman then advanced the argument that the appellant might abuse the process of the law by dilatory action. I do not think there is much possibility of that with regard to an appeal from a county court judge. Notice of appeal is given within the prescribed period and the case comes into the list in the ordinary way. It would, of course, depend on how many judges were available when the case would come on for hearing. Quite apart from that argument, the possibility that in some instances one might be guilty of delay is, in my opinion, no argument for saying that the subject, be he a tenant or a public authority, if one likes, should be deprived of the right of appeal to the county court or the Court of Appeal. For that, as for the other reasons which have been advanced by my hon. Friends, we cannot agree to the inclusion of this Clause.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: We on this side consider this as a matter of principle, quite apart from the fact that it is in itself one of the most important matters in the whole of this Bill. I think my hon. Friend will agree that we have become accustomed in the last five years to being informed by hon. Members opposite that what the Government want to achieve is rough justice.

The Attorney-General: The Attorney-General indicated dissent.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Well, that is what we have often been told, and the longer the Government are here the rougher the justice gets. Rough justice is the expression to which we have been singularly accustomed in recent years, but this seems to be the last example of how rough justice can be. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is an argument merely of expediency, and what he is saying is that what the Government are aiming at is to have a cadi sitting under a palm tree and trying to arrive at decisions without guidance. If that is so, he is taking us back to the days when the then Minister without Portfolio in this House, now the Lord Chancellor, used the same expression on the question of rehabilitating


sea-coast resorts. It may be within the memory of some hon. Members that it was then found that this belief was singularly unsuccessful, and I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if he tries it again he, too, will find it singularly unsuccessful.
It is absolutely essential for these tribunals to have some sort of direction from Parliament as to the lines upon which they have to function, and if he leaves the Bill as it is now, without any right of appeal to anybody at all, it is unavoidable that there will be an immense number of applications to judges all over the country. What will be the result? The result will be a mass of completely unrelated and differing decisions. The only possible way of even offering a rough choice of the rough justice which the Government seek to accord by this Bill is to allow some right of appeal whereby at least the decisions which must be made when this Bill comes

into operation will find a certain amount of correlation.

What Parliament is being asked to do is to "pass the buck." We are being asked by the Government to do nothing more than shelve our responsibilities for making quite clear what is the intent as well as the nature of the legislation we are passing. In other words, we are being asked to pass this responsibility on to the county court judges, and I say that, both as a matter of principle, as well as a matter of policy, it is grossly unfair and unbefitting that this should be done; and the very least that we can do is surely to assist those hard-working and intelligent people who are going to be put into a difficult position, by having matters taken to a Court of Appeal.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

"The Committee divided: Ayes, 160 Noes, 133.

Division No. 28.]
AYES
[10.49 p.m.


Ayles, W. H.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.


Bacon, Miss A
George, Lady M. Lloyd
Moeran, E. W.


Balfour, A
Gibson, C. W.
Monslow, W.


Barnes, Rt Hon. A J
Gilzean, A.
Moody, A. S.


Bartley, P.
Greenwood, A. W J (Rossendale)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Bonn, Hon A N Wedgwood
Grenfell. D. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Benson, G.
Grey, C. F.
Mort, D. L.


Blenkinsop, A
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mulley, F. W.


Blyton, W R.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Neal, H.


Boardman. H
Grimond, J.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Bottomley, A. G
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Oliver, G. H


Bowden, H. W.
Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)
Orbach, M


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hall, Rt. Hn. W. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Padley, W. E.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hardy, E. A.
Paget, R. T.


Brook, D (Halifax^
Hargreaves, A.
Parker, J.


Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Harrison, J.
Pearson, A.


Broughtom, Dr. A, D. D
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Popplewell, E


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hayman, F. H.
Porter. G


Burke, W A
Herbison, Miss M.
Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Burton, Miss E.
Houghton, Douglas
Proctor, W. T.


Butler, H. W. (hackney S.)
Hoy, J.
Rees, Mrs. D.


Champion, A. J
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Clunie, J
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reid, W. (Camlachie)


Cocks, F S
Hynd, H (Accrington)
Richards, R.


Coldrick, W
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Robens, A.


Collick, P
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Corbet, Mrs F. K (Peckham)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Janner, B.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jeger, Dr. s. W (St. Pancras, S.)
Royle C.


Crosland, C. A R.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Darling, G (Hillsboro')
Keenan, W.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Davies,.A Edward (Stoke, N.)
King, H. M.
Simmons, C J


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, F. (Newton)
Slater, J


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lindgren, G S.
Smith, 'Ellis (Stoke, S.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
MacColl, J. E.
Sorensen, R. W


Deer, G.
McInnes, J.
Soskice, Rt Hon Sir F


Delargy, H J
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Sparks, J A


Donnelly, D
McLeavy, F.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Driberg, T E. N
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirring)
Stross, Dr B.


Dye, S.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Ede, Rt Hon J C
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Ewart, R.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Thomas, I D (Wrekin)


Fernybough, E.
Messer, F.
Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W.)


Finch, H. J
Middleton, Mrs. L
Thurtle, Ernest


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mikardo, Ian
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Follick, M.






Tomney, F.
Wilkins, W. A.
Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)


Turner-Samuels, M.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)


Ungoed-Thomas, A. L
Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Wise, Major F. J.


Wallace, H W
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Weitzman, D.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)



Wilt, D. G.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Huyton)
Mr. Hannan and Mr. Collindridge.




NOES


Alport, C. J. M.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Powell, J. Enoch


Arbuthnot, John
Gage, C. H.
Profumo, J. D


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Raikes, H. V


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
Redmayne, M


Baker, P.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Baldock J. M.
Hay, John
Rodgers, J. (Sevenoaks)


Baldwin, A. E
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Roper, Sir H.


Banks, Col. C
Heald, L. F.
Ropner. Col L


Baxter, A. B
Heath, E. R.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W
Russell, R. S.


Bell, R. M.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Scott, Donald


Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Shepherd, W. S. (Cheadle)


Birch, Nigel
Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)
Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)


Bishop, F. P.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Black, C. W.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hurd, A. R.
Stanley, Capt. Hon R (N Fylde)


Boothby, R.
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Stevens, G. P.


Bossom, A. C.
Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Storey, S.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Johnson, Howard S (Kemptown)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Braine, B.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Studholme, H. G


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Studholme, H.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Coi. W
Lambert, Hon. G.
Teeling, William


Brooke, H. (Hampstead)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Thompson, R. H. M (Croyoon, W.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Linstead, H. N.
Tilney, John


Burden, Squadron-Leader f. A
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Touche, G. C.


Channon, H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Turton, R. H.


Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grinstead)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Clarke, Brig T H (Portsmouth, W.)
McKibbin, A.
Vaughan-Morgan, J K


Colegate, A.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Vosper, D. F.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Maclay, Hon. J S
Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)


Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Wakefield, Sir W. W (St. Marylebone)


Cranbome, Viscount
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Walker-Smith, D C


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0 E
Mai Hand, Comdr. J. W.
Ward, Hon G R. (Worcester)


Crouch, R F.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Darling, Sir W Y (Edinburgh, S.)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Waterhouse, Capt. RI. Hon C


de Chair, S
Maude, J. C (Exeter)
Wheatley, Major M J. (Poole)


Deedes, W F
Medlicott, Brigadier F
White, J Baker (Canterbury)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Mellor, Sir J.
Wills, G.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Molson, A H. E.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Duncan, Capt. J A L
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Winterton, Rt Hon. Earl


Eden, Rt Hon. A
Nul[...]ing. Anthony
Wood, Hon. R.


Fisher, Nigel
Oakshott, H. D.



Fort, R
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Foster, J. G.
Pickthorn, K.
Mr. Drewe and Brigadier Mackeson.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)




Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14.—(APPLICATION TO CROWN)

The Attorney-General: I in page 11, line 34, to leave beginning, to the second "insert
Except in so pressly provided.

This is a drafting Amendment

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 11, line 36, after "Crown," to insert:
or the Duchy of Lancaster, and where there is an interest belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall,
The object of this Amendment is to bring within the scope of this Bill lands

belonging to the Crown in right of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. The difference in the terminology used in respect of the two Duchies is due to the fact that, whereas the Duchy of Lancaster is by Statute forever merged in the Crown, the Duchy of Cornwall is capable of being separated from the Crown, though whether that separation occurs by a new creation or in virtue of a Statute or of the ori2inal charter is a matter of extreme obscurity.
If you will refer, Sir Charles, to the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, you will find that Section 24 of that Act provides for its application not only to lands belonging to His Majesty in right of the Crown but also to the lands of the two Duchies. The purpose of this Amendment is to ascertain from the Government why


a provision which was appropriate in the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, is inappropriate in a Bill which in some measure extends the operation of the 1927 Act. The Attorney-General, in moving the Second Reading, gave two reasons. He said that there were special constitutional circumstances applying to the two Duchies which made reasonable their exclusion from this Bill. But if these constitutional circumstances—

It being Eleven o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress. and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Captain Waterhouse added to the Committee of Public Accounts.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PRICES

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

11.3 p.m.

Miss Burton: I want to raise the question of high prices of fruit and vegetables at the weekend. This is not a new practice. It is one that I have observed over a good many years. It is noticed particularly by those of us who do our own shopping and go to the small shops to collect our vegetables, and particularly if we go on a Friday or a Saturday. We all realise that there is a much greater demand on a Friday or a Saturday for fruit and vegetables, and therefore, quite reasonably there is a much greater profit to the shopkeepers on those days. Today, when we hear so much about the cost of living—and everybody knows full well that it is rising—it is important that we should get the best value for our money. I think it will be agreed that anything which unnecessarily adds to the cost of living should be stopped.
One point I should like to make is this. I believe that some people in this country are apt to forget at times that the cost of living has gone up elsewhere in the world as well as in Britain. It may be cold comfort to say that the £ is worth less

in other countries as well as in our own, but it is something which should be pointed out. If we take June, 1950, we find that the cost of living has reduced the purchasing power of the £ to about 16s. compared with June, 1945. But the fall of the purchasing power of money has been greater in other countries. In fairness, that fact should be stated. In the United States of America, taking the same period, June, 1950, the £ was worth 15s., which was Is. less than it was worth in our own country; in Australia, it was 14s, 8d.; in Canada, 14s. 1d.; in Italy, 9s. 11 d.; and in France, 3s, 9d.
I know full well, particularly as I do my own shopping, that the fact that 20s. was worth 3s. 9d. in France does not make our £ go farther, but it makes me proud of the efforts of the Government in this country, which by using food subsidies has prevented the cost of living from rising further. If we take the 12 months from June, 1949, to June, 1950,. we find that the cost of living in Britain went up by 2 per cent., exactly the same as it did in America; but in Canada it went up 4 per cent.; in New Zealand and Denmark 5 per cent; in South Africa, 6 per cent.; in France, 8 per cent; and in Australia 9 per cent.
Members will recall that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to a Question in this House on 23rd January, gave the purchasing power of our £ sterling, compared with 1945, as 15s. 10d. That figure was valid in August, 1950. I have stressed these points because I feel that it is time, in this House and outside, that tribute was paid to the policy of this Government, which, by means of food subsidies has kept the cost of living lower than any other country in Europe, except the Scandinavian countries, which have a Labour Government, too. In Australia and New Zealand, the bigger part of the increase in the 12 months mentioned took place after the return to power of Tory Governments which were pledged to bring prices down.
When I knew that I had been lucky in the ballot for tonight, I did not feel it was any use airing my views if they were not substantiated, so I asked the housewives in Coventry if, during January, they would have a look at the shops where they normally deal and would compare over the four weekends in January the prices of fruit and vegetables from


Monday to Thursday and on Fridays and Saturdays. They did that and sent me the answers to these questionnaires. I want to be quite fair. The House will appreciate that every shop in Coventry was not covered; it was the shops to which the housewives normally went, and the figures we have got are an average return.
The prices I give are the price increases per lb. which obtained in a good many of the shops in Coventry over the four weekends of January. Cabbage went up 2d. to 1d.; cauliflower, 2d. to 4d.; Brussels sprouts, 4d. to 6d.; carrots, ld.; onions, l½d.; parsnips, 2d.; celery, 2d. to 4d. more per head; tomatoes, 1d. to 4d.; apples, 2d. to 4d.; mushrooms, 3d. per quarter lb.; lemons, ld. each; oranges, ½d. to ½d.; pears, 2d. to 4d.; grapes, 3d.; lettuce, 4d.;and rabbits went up by as much as ls. 3d. per lb. extra. That is what the housewives found in Coventry. Those were the increases in the prices of fruit and vegetables at the weekends over the ordinary prices during the other days of the week.

Major Hicks-Beach: Can the hon. Lady give us comparable figures for another year? We all know December and January are extremely hard weather months, which-may account for the rise.

Miss Burton: No, I have not got them for another year, but I am sure that if the shops feel they are being done an injustice, they will come back with the information. I do my own shopping, and I always avoid Fridays, because prices are up then whatever the month.
The housewives, of their own volition, put comments on the bottom of the questionnaires. Two of them were particularly interesting. The first was that they found no uniform prices for many commodities in the shops. They varied from place to place. The second point they made, and the more interesting, was that even though these prices varied a lot at the weekend, they varied a great deal more at weekends when new potatoes, peas and summer fruits and vegetables were in the shops.
Obviously it would not have been fair just to have taken Coventry alone, which may be good or bad in that respect, and so we went further afield, and we noticed

this same problem in four other cities—London, Manchester, Birmingham and Bristol. I will not weary the House with the mass of figures I have with me. Any hon. Member may see them afterwards, and I have broken them down quite fairly. These were the goods noticed in these four cities over a period of a fortnight, the last two weeks in January—the period was four weeks in Coventry and two in these cities—oranges, dessert apples, cooking apples, pears, cabbage lettuce, tomatoes, dry bulb onions, carrots, parsnips, savoys, other hearted cabbage, cauliflowers, and Brussels sprouts.
In London prices were up for oranges, cauliflowers and, in some shops, pears. Oranges were up by ½d. each, cauliflowers by 1d. each or 2d. a lb., pears by 2d. a lb. In Manchester, cooking apples were up 2d. a lb., cabbage lettuce by a 1d. each, tomatoes 8d. a lb.—from Is. 1d. to 1s. 9d.—and oranges by ½d. a lb. In Birmingham, oranges went up by ½d, each, cauliflowers by 1d. a lb., and brussels sprouts by ld. a lb. In Bristol, dessert apples went up by ld. to 3½d. a lb., cabbage lettuce by 2d. each. tomatoes by 1d. a lb., savoys by a ½d. a lb., oranges by ¼d. each, and brussels sprouts by 1d. a lb.
It would give a wrong and inaccurate picture if I did not state that in some places prices went down for certain commodities. In some of the London shops pears went down by 1d., tomatoes by 2d. In Manchester cauliflowers fell by 4d., brussels sprouts by ½d., dessert apples by 2d., and dry bulb onions by 1d. In. Birmingham, cabbage lettuce went down by 1d., savoys by ½d., tomatoes by 2d., and cauliflowers by 2d. Birmingham was the only place where oranges fell at all at the weekend, and they fell by 1d. a lb. In Bristol, pears were down by 1½d., tomatoes by 2½d., savoys by 1d., and cauliflowers by ½d. The housewives who gave me this information told me that in many places where prices went down they did so late on the Saturday so that the shop owners would not have perishable goods on their hands. I do not say that is the reason, but it is a reason we all know.
I get back to my original question: Why should prices of fruit and vegetables go up at the weekends? I found only one reason, or one excuse, put forward by the people in the trade. It was the fear of wastage at the weekends. They


said if they were left with goods on their hands on Saturday, they had to keep them over Sunday and if they went bad by the Monday, they were out of pocket. I do not think that is a very good argument.
In the first place, it can be overcome by the reduction of prices late on Saturday. If there is a much greater demand on Friday and Saturday, there are greater profits on Friday and Saturday, and that should cover the wastage they speak about. It would only be fair to tell the House that one small trader—and she was the only one to do so, showing it not to be prevalent—put forward the point that there was a condition of sale. She had to take some things she did not want from her supplier in order to get goods she did want, and therefore, she had to put up the prices to cover the goods she did not want.
Although I have raised this matter in the House, it is a matter for the public. It is not something we can legislate upon and I hope it is something we should not wish to legislate upon. It is a matter for public opinion. I know that every hon. Member thinks that his constituency is quite the best, but I should like to mention Coventry. In Coventry the housewives have been looking into this matter. I do not know whether or not we can take the following as a recognition of the authority of Parliament, but in one area of Coventry which was very bad for this increase in prices at the weekend, during the months we sent out this questionnaire, the housewives tell me that there has been no increase at all. Maybe, as the hon. Member opposite suggested, this is because it was the month of January and because of the cold weather: but however that may be, while the questionnaire was being sent out, nothing was noticed.
I want the housewives to look into this matter. If more women are asked to return to industry, that is likely to push more shopping on to the weekend. I think it will be agreed on all sides that it is an intolerable thing that, if people have to shop at the weekend, they should have to pay more than if they shop at the beginning of the week. Those of us who do our own shopping—men as well as women—if we see goods marked higher on Friday and Saturday, should

ask the shopkeeper why, or write to the local paper about it. While I have no objection to people making profits out of increased demand. I think it is intolerable that they should fleece the public by putting on additional prices on Friday and Saturday.
There are two possible solutions. One is that people should shop earlier in the week. I do not think that is feasible. Most wages are paid on Friday and most people prefer to shop on Friday or Saturday for the weekend. The other is that public opinion must draw attention to this and try to prevent shopkeepers from doing it. In conclusion, I should like to thank the Ministry of Food and the. Parliamentary Secretary for the co-operation they have given in this matter. I hope they will be able to give us a lead about this ramp at the weekends.

11.18 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Frederick Willey): As my hon. Friend has indicated in raising this rather intriguing subject, I asked officers of my Department to make inquiries over two recent weekends. These inquiries were made in London, Manchester, Birmingham and Bristol and were concentrated on the 12 varieties of fruit and vegetables to which my hon. Friend referred. Before dealing with these inquiries, I should like to make two general observations. In spite of increased costs, prices of most fruit and vegetables are, and have been for some time, at or below the previous controlled maximum prices. The second general point is that the prices of fruit and vegetables are especially influenced by variations of supply and by consumer's choice.
To return to the question of weekend prices, when we talk about weekend prices we have to recognise that the shopping of fruit and vegetables is concentrated at the weekend. In fact, of all retail sales of fruit and vegetables, about 55 per cents. occur on Fridays and Saturdays. This in itself, however, is not the explanation of the variations with which we are concerned. In fact, these variations do not follow any clear price pattern at all. If we analyse the results of our inquiries we find that, for the first weekend, in 11 cases an average price increase had occurred, but in seven cases the average retail price had fallen.
If we turn to the second weekend, the position then was that in 10 cases the average retail price had increased; and in nine cases the average retail price had decreased. For the rest, the average retail price had not altered. Indeed, in the case of carrots, parsnips and cabbages—and these, in this respect, differ from Coventry—in the four areas to which we directed our inquiries there was no price variation as far as the average retail price was concerned. I have been dealing, so far, with the average retail price, but these averages in themselves are confusing. If we take as an illustration savoy cabbages, in the first weekend, the average retail price rose in Bristol. In the second weekend it fell in Bristol. The same sort of inexplicable variation between the trend of average prices can be illustrated in different centres. As regards tomatoes, the average price increased in Bristol for the first weekend and decreased for the second weekend, although for the second weekend in other commodities there were price increases.
It might be assumed that perhaps the retail prices to some degree reflect the wholesale prices, but in general that is not so. The wholesale prices, as far as I have been able to examine them, through these limited inquiries, do not show price fluctuations to this degree. The retailers' general practice is to buy twice weekly, and it might be thought, again, that the fact that they buy more heavily towards the end of the week might affect the wholesale prices. But that is not so either. So neither in the particular examples nor in general does the change of retail prices reflect the wholesale prices.
Another qualification which has to be made is that so far I have been dealing with average prices, but these average prices themselves are averages of a wide range of prices. I have mentioned the price of tomatoes in Bristol. For the first weekend, the average price was based upon prices varying over a range from 1s. to 2s. per lb., and for the second weekend the average was of prices ranging between 10d. and 1s. 8d. per 1b. To take another example, dessert apples at Manchester for the first weekend had prices which differed as much as from 7d. to 1s. 9d.; and in the second weekend from 6d. to 1s. 9d. When I looked at the figures for Manchester, I found that on

the Tuesday of the first week we had looked into, the retail price of tomatoes was actually less than the wholesale price then obtaining. Perhaps that no more than illustrates the fact that the retailer carries with him a surplus stock and that at the beginning of the following week he has to dispose of that stock. Not only has he to dispose of it, however, but it is not in as fresh condition as it would have been on the previous Friday or Saturday.
We have to be careful not to be too alarmed about this price variation. After all, if we want competitive retailing we have to accept this variation, and it is that very variation which gives the consumer the opportunity of exercising effectively consumer choice. Another factor which reflects itself in price is quality. It might be cheaper to buy better quality at higher prices than a lower quantity at lower prices. All these factors make generalisation difficult, but even a limited inquiry like this into the distribution of fruit and vegetables confirms all that the Labour Party said at the last Election about the subject. It confirms what the retailers themselves say. The Retail Fruit Trade Federation, in their charter, call attention to the need for avoiding, through the distributive trade, disparity of price.
If there are difficulties in giving a rational explanation of the factors we are considering, at any rate it amply justifies the very careful consideration which is being given to this general problem by the Government at the present time. The more that it is considered, as is shown by what we are discussing tonight, the more clear it is that the reduction of the costs of distribution of fruit and vegetables is a complex question, to which there is no early or simple solution. The mere fact that it is complex, does not mean that it can be avoided. It has to be carefully considered and a solution sought.
I will touch upon one of the other matters mentioned, and that is the question of women in industry. I remember that during the war arrangements were made to enable women in industry to shop during the week. That is not such an urgent matter now as it was then, because, of course, many workers have got a five-day week. Nevertheless it is something to pay regard to in connection with this undesirable feature in the distribution of fruit and vegetables. We


want free and fair competition, but we do not want a trend of prices which will prejudice the trade in the eyes of the public. I hope that the retailers themselves will pay attention to the researches of my hon. Friend, and also to the figures which I have been able to give to the House tonight, and that they will do their best to endeavour to see that, although they are faced with the difficulties of carrying too great a stock to meet public demand over the weekend, they do not take undue advantage of the fact that most people buy more heavily at the weekend. In fact, most people not only prefer but are obliged to buy more heavily at that time.
As I have said, some of these prices are quite inexplicable, and it is really up to the retailers not to compel the consumer to be prejudiced in exercising consumer choice by having to go long distances in an effort to discover variety and fair prices. It does seem to me that it would be better if there were more market intelligence, and if, while allowing wider consumer choice, there were not these wide irrational price fluctuations.

Adjourned accordingly at Half-past Eleven o'Clock.